photosbytw:
The day after I said that I would no longer abstain, it occurred to me that I don't have any issue, whatsoever as to what someone posts as an image, in general. It's more of what I consider an image as, definitionally a photograph.
Of course, I am a colossal manipulator of photographs, but I try to stay pretty close to reality. Images that take an image in directions that are not photograph-like might be absolutely gorgeous, but I think they are a step beyond photography, tones, lighting, etc.
I don't particularly want to say these images are bad and would prefer to say- This is not what I want to do or discuss photographically. Which is (after considerable thought) is the reason for my abstentions.

I still don't know how to deal with this, and it appears to be a good exercise, in understanding graphical representations, in general, and what I perceive a site like Flickr to be.

Teddy Alfrey:
Let me give you some advice to help with the anxiety we suffer when offering critiques.
This method can bring about some interesting discussions. Take a cocktail of your choice and down it before reviewing the submissions. If you come across an image after that still causes mental palpitations.........Down a second drink. If you are still suffering from any anxiety. Repeat step two until a warm loving glow envelopes you and start commenting.

photosbytw:
Been there, done that, and learned my lesson!
I might slowly sip on a glass of wine while I type my comments, but I have learned not to post anything online once I start a second glass! I become too "enthusiastic" if I start to get tipsy, I start typing better, get better ideas, and my sense of humor goes into hyperspace. At least it seems so at the time! The next day, when I read what I've posted, I sound like Lurch, in "the Adams Family,"- uuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhh

Something else I've noticed recently is that a lot of people here will write off a picture of something from a foreign culture entirely if either they don't know what the picture's subject is or if they don't know what the foreign language text in the picture means. That disappoints me a lot.

ben_olson:

....or they're just admitting to their own shortcomings......

ben_olson:
photosbytw:
I would be curious to see a photo where people have "written off a picture of something from a foreign culture entirely." Do you have examples of such photos?

Of course, if a viewer doesn't know what the subject of a photo is, and it's not an abstract image, there's a good chance that the photo isn't very good.

Teddy Alfrey:

Just to be clear, I was referring to myself...........

I think that, unless they come right out and say, “I don’t like this photo because it has Russian or Chinese text in it,” we have to be careful about jumping to conclusions about motives, assuming we don’t have some special power that enables us to read people’s minds … Maybe the photo just didn’t tickle their fancy.

ben_olson: Ben, with all respect. I think you are drawing a wrong conclusion. I'd rather say that the majority here is rather lenient on images specifically with a Japanese context.

The thing is that the majority of this group will have an "Other people's art" attitude if you are depicting something written. It doesn't matter which language it is. Furthermore, your images tend to be rather plain representations without much post processing which could make such images a keeper. Ahmer posted a good example this week. Without his post processing, this image could suffer the same fate you described. But Ahmer made more out of simple pieces of paper.

The group is quite diverse in terms of countries represented so I don't think something being foreign is a problem. I would say that there a few people here that verge on being japanophiles (myself included) and as Jorg said we are lenient on photos depicting life in Japan.

I've never noticed images being rejected because of country of origin or foreign language text. Not to say that Weekly doesn't favor certain types of images over others. There is an ebb and flow in that regard, depending on the tastes and experience of its current members at any given point in time. Right now, the technical aspects of photography seem paramount.

(Disclaimer: Some technical knowledge required, but the following is entirely a non-technical opinion. I realize the those who think that photos are objectively good or bad will disagree with me...but anyway) People like to see things which are to some extent familiar or relatable. A photograph with elements of the everyday might bring back to me thoughts and experiences that I have had but may have no meaning at all to someone else who sees the same photo and vice versa.
On the other hand, as a local well-know photographer Tatsuo Suzuki has said, he likes it when his photos have a certain tension. And I think that in Tokyo, for example, there is ample opportunity to create photography that contains some tension between the familiar and the unfamiliar (call it an unfair advantage, if you like). One group of people will see and appreciate that tension, and maybe they will like it and say "Keeper". Another group, perhaps uncomfortable with the unfamiliar, or who simply dislike the tension in the photo maybe will say "Freeflight", which should also be considered a success since the photo has provoked an earnest emotion. Maybe a third group will say "Freeflight" and that they just can't relate to it and that is okay too, as long as you the photographer have an idea what your intention was and maybe consider why that intention was not conveyed very successfully. Sometimes, changing the composition will help express that intention. So, in that way, comments from the third group are also helpful.

TokyoZenPoetry:
"familiar" vs "unfamiliar" => tension

I've never thought if it this way... very interesting indeed. Thank you Glen.

I think that this touches on a good point, although I think that this involves a lot more than just the subject matter in front of the lens.

I think that images that rely on the subject being “unfamiliar” in order to make their visual point are tricky, because things that may be unfamiliar to the photographer, like kanji on a sign or a burka in the street, are very familiar and mundane to millions of other people. Featuring these subjects in a photograph, and assuming that they will seem foreign to the viewer, can reveal more about the cultural background and bias of the photographer than anything about the subject, and that seems rather shallow to me. My advice is; don’t show me what an American might find exotic, show me something that everyone, everywhere will find different and unusual and interesting.

On the other hand, I would define “Art” as anything that shows us the world in a way that is different than the way we normally see it. I completely agree with you that showing people a world other than the one that they are familiar with, is disturbing to them, and many people just don’t like that feeling. IMO, this is the whole point of all “Art” in any medium, however. It is to disrupt and disturb “The World as Usual”.

As you point out, many people dislike things that are unfamiliar, be it in subject, composition, execution, presentation, or even “development”. They LIKE “The World as Usual”, and photography as usual. This is why I think that chasing consensus is boring. I say; if everyone likes it, it ain't art.

The ancient Greek philosophers believed that everything in this world is an imperfect reflection of an ideal that is in the spirit realm. They called the invisible perfection the Logos. Whether or not we believe the theo-philosophical underpinnings of this way of thinking, I think they hit upon something very real. We sense that the imperfect and mundane things OOC speak of a more perfect version. This is why when in post we "enhance" the colors, saturation, tones, etc.; it can produce a result that impacts people at a deep level. You are allowing them to get a glimpse (though also imperfect, but at least closer) of that original ideal. And that is of universal human value.

Familiar or not, there are standards of artistic composition that have been around for centuries. While breaking these rules or conventions can often work, doing so must be for a good reason. Simply ignoring compositional conventions for the sake of laziness or wishful thinking is not a recipe for good photography. Lazy photographers are like the proverbial "A stopped clock that's always right, twice a day." Every now and then they'll create a good photo, but it's just a matter of luck.
My recommendation for a photographer who consistently gets "freeflights," "uncools," or rejections in general:
First and foremost in the list- consider what's going in the way the photos are composed, and possibly take a quick-peak at some of the very well established compositional conventions.
Second in the list- Look for general errors in focus, tones, etc.
Don't ever include this on any list- Assume it's a mistake on the viewer's part.

Accusing the viewer of why one of our photos sucks will not allow us to learn anything or improve our photography.

It's fine to speculate about why people might not understand your work, or even vent about it, but a photographer should never, ever, ever generally assume that they are right and the whole world is wrong.

What's important is doing the donkey stuff of learning your craft: camera, processing, promoting, and teaching. All the other stuff is B.S.

DrGregPhotos:
I'm not a philosopher but married to one.
Your comment is a good one! Maybe, it's related to Plato's "Analogy of the sun"?
Logos = Logic or some kind of ordered thought.
Thinking of logic as an "invisible perfection" is fun. I'm a coder, so I might have a specific spin on the concept.

My knowledge of philosophy is a mile wide and an inch deep, and saying that could be called the "allegory of the lake."

I am partial to Plato's allegory of the cave in which prisoners are chained all their lives to the wall of a cave. They can only see shadows projected onto the wall across from them as objects pass in front of a fire located on an upper level behind them. The shadows are not complete representations of the world outside the dungeon. As photographers using technical know-how, an eye for compositions, and post-production skills, we can help others see a more accurate shadow of what we photograph.

Teddy Alfrey:


Lazy is such a strong word... so accusatory and detrimental... particularly if used to qualify the work of someone we don't know. Please remember we are here to comment on the photograph, not the photographer.


Calling someone we don't know, lazy, because we perceive the submitted image as sloppy, is a terrible assumption that can lead to irreparable damage. Please avoid these qualifiers, we've been through some bad experiences just a few months ago.


Ask first, asking does not hurt anyone, quite the contrary. Assuming instead will get you in big trouble offending someone you never meant to offend. Keep in mind we communicate by text, we don't have the benefit of supporting our sayings with a funny face, a hug and tong in the cheek, or some gesture to let people know we intend no offense. A strong opinion can be like a bullet, or a bomb.

Aesthetic standards for example, are strongly rooted in culture and tradition. Easter vs western for example. People in countries writing right to left will likely prefer a mirror version of your favorite photographs for example, versions you probably won't like at all.

Accusing the viewer for disliking a submission is as bad as accusing the photographer for submitting something we don't like. We are here to say why we don't like it, as a form of feedback, in a purely informative way. It is up to the author to find value in our feedback or not.

Let's keep the tone positive and constructive, there's always a better way of saying what we want to say... take your time and read what you've written from the top before you press "send"

I rather see members risking more submissions with tilted verticals and slanted horizons and distorted planes than perfectly squared rectangles and squares. Straight lines only exist in the human mind, or the products of the human mind... there's very... very few instances of straight lines in nature, very little is straight in nature.

Truth vs Reality: How we evolved to survive, not to see what’s really there | Donald Hoffman


www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SL-j1XoDms

Which you can easily translate in terms of art, photography and aesthetics.

ferlopez:
We might have to agree to disagree on this one...

Saying that "lazy photographers" exist is not "accusatory and detrimental."

I was being generous in the statement "'Lazy photographers are like the proverbial "A stopped clock that's always right, twice a day."'"

I have made mistakes in my comments before and apologized a few times. However, I stand by everything I said in this case.

After catching up on the comments of this discussion, and it's good that these discussions take place, I felt I should pass on a quote from my high school history teacher(who was a talented amateur photographer) He quoted it often......

"If you can't accept rejection or criticism, you have no business being a photographer"

I believe I posted this previously, if so, apologies.

When it comes to art, there is no "right" or "wrong" methodology. Rather, there are only methods.....those that succeed at creating something seen as artistic by those creating and/or viewing it, and those that don't manage that.

Skill and expertise in photographic techniques can be wonderful aids in creating art, but they can also become a hindrance, sacrificing any real artistic expression in the name of correctness. We do one another a disservice if we assume we understand the motivation, reasoning, or skill set behind a work. All we should really do is view and judge the work from our perspective. If we have questions about it....good, ask away. But making assumptions about motivation or skill level.....probably not so good.

Teddy Alfrey:
We're good and I never asked for an apology or anything like it. It's more about raising awareness. And we don't need to agree, of course not.

I feel a strong statement like "submitting a slanted horizon, an uncorrected lens distortion, a blurry image, etc, etc, are signs or proof of a lazy photography" can be dangerous and offensive.

1 - First and foremost, those "defects" can be an intended desired effect from(?) the photographer. Quite often you'll find others here praising an image for characteristics we dislike or disprove.
It is better to say "I think this is a defect" rather than "I think you are a lazy photographer"

2 - Unfortunately your generic statement that photographers who don't meet those expectations are lazy include many of us here reading your post, who for one or another reason submitted images with such "defects". While you may be referring in general your comment will be received within the context of this community. You're calling us lazy too.

3 - Furthermore, we've recently had several submissions with slanted horizons which I much preferred and even loved, for example:



While the general opinion was the tilted horizon should have been leveled, being this one of the reasons the image was a freeflight in the end, I was able to see clear elements of composition that tell me that far from being "lazy" or "careless", this photographer has a superior and extraordinary eye for composition that allows him to deliver... unconsciously... probably at the speed of a snapshot... a composition most of us would never be able to create in a million years.



So I emphasize that sometimes those "defects" are actually virtues and getting stuck on those "defects" may not be letting us fully appreciate the image in question.

4 - Even if you were right, and all those "defects" were actually defects, you still don't know how much time the photography spent on the image, what are his/her expectations or level of satisfaction and achievement given his/her current knowledge and abilities. Poor end results do not necessarily imply a lazy careless attitude from the creator. Lazy is detrimental. Lazy is diminishing. Lazy makes people believe they don't belong here, or if they're beginners, photography is not for them or worth their effort.

Please, don't take this wrong and don't feel you are being sanctioned or moderated.
Mine is an invitation and I'm using your comment as an example for all to reflect on how our words have an impact that can be detrimental. I am guilty of making strong comments myself, I recently apologized to Craig for one. It's not about what we say, it's how we say it.

My goal, my work as an admin, is to help this space become a place that welcomes everyone who wants to receive feedback for their work, a place where everyone, new and old members alike, feels safe and respected. A place where even if their submission does not meet the standards to become a keeper, at least their efforts and intentions will be recognized, valued and respected.

I also believe there's lazy photographers out there, there's lots of lazy people in general. And to he honest quite often I feel I'm completely surrounded by blatant idiots.

Yet, I find it is much more constructive to put my personal frustrations aside, and say "you can do better" rather than "you did wrong"; "Your efforts didn't pay off this time" rather than "you're a lazy photographer"

This is what I mean when I often say Remove yourself from your critiques

Please remind yourselves every day, every time, kindness goes a long way, kindness is the key to our success and survival. If we allow rough words take over, we'll vanish in record time.


5 - Finally, after saying what I just said, I could also argue that "lazy" could be used to qualify the viewer too. And while sometimes I feel members speed-vote not taking the time to fully appreciate the submission, I refrain from using that qualifier because doing so would be as bad an assumption as thinking the photographer was careless. We don't know the amount of effort each of us put into it.

You know the proverb... "When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me"
All in good faith and towards a good end result.

Regards.

ferlopez:
I am very gratified when someone goes into great detail about photography! I'm so grateful when this happens. You're not the only one who does it, but you seem to be giving me an "Invitation to the dance" with your responses more than others.

I don't want to be adversarial or contentious in our communications. I don't know if the folks here think I am a prude or narrow-minded, and I suspect my writing style makes me sound like I'm lecturing more than I would like. I'm actually known for being gregarious and liking to "horse around" more than I ought to. I'm not a stern person, but I abhor "alternative facts" and can usually tell when someone's trying to blow smoke up my butt.


I think you are reading something in my post than I meant, which means that I didn't write it very well.


My use of the term "lazy photographer" was intended to be in the spirit of "Primitive Pete," "Goofus and Gallant," or "Dimwit & Duke," characters in the old vintage instructional films and cartoons that were shown to me as a child, in the 1950s and 1960s. I could come with a name like "Cock-Eyed Jack," who thinks it's a waste of time to think about composition, focus, or learning about processing.
Despite all of the shortcomings in Cock-Eyed-Jack's photos, he is always upset because his viewers don't understand the greatness of his photos.
My comment was a "Don't be like Cock-Eyed-Jack" message.

There is absolutely no value for a photographer to contemplate the possibility that their photos are great and the rest of the World is wrong. Doing such a thing should never be part of photography, at least if you want to learn, improve, or succeed.

If a photographer consistently doesn't have the time or patience to fix even the most simple of all problems in camera or in post, that's pretty darn close to being lazy.
Beginner photographers can be forgiven because they don't know any better and should be encouraged, but at some point if it becomes apparent that they are"disinclined to activity or exertion: not energetic or vigorous" with their photography, that's definitionally lazy.

The main point of my post was about how wrong-headed it is to blame viewers for a photographer's shortcomings.

As far as level or not level horizons are concerned:
Part of my long comment on the very photo you used as an example was:
"...I believe this tilt is valid and just barely fits the definition of a Dutch Angle because of the vicious stares of goose and man. (Isn't there a Metallica song with that title?) I'm still pondering this, and if anyone wants to trim tab my speculations, it might be fun."

I also described the tilt as the "Elephant in the room" with this photo because it would be an obvious point to consider and discuss.

You can see my whole comment here:
www.flickr.com/groups/weekly/discuss/72157721917145826?new

I enjoy unusual and interesting angles in a photo (Dutch Angels, as I frequently mention), but there's a LOT more than simply whether or not a horizon is tilted.

I have criticized images that have tilted horizons in the past. This has always been in photos that were shot in a traditional landscape seascape kind of thing, and evident that the photographer didn't take the trouble to straighten it out. To me, when reviewing this kind of photo, to point out a crooked horizon is a service. It it was one of my land/seascapes, I would appreciate the FYI.
Of course, a traditional photo like this may be crooked because the photographer was trying to communicate the sad state of the World or the decadence of mankind. However, I'm a pragmatic kind of photographer, and while it might be fun to speculate about obscure philosophical things like "Is the table there?" "Is knowledge real?" "What are numbers?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and thinking about these mysterious things can add perspective, but at some point, we want to create real, usable photographs. Most photographers I know of have more practical thoughts about how a photograph should be besides "Gee whiz!!! The photographer must have really, really, really felt something important and that's always going to be cool, despite all the crappy stuff about it, so all photos are equal!!!" <- I know you don't think that, but I'm trying to make a point: If any of us want to become better photographers, we must stop monkeying around and start improving our photographic skills and knowledge.

In part of the comment I made on your example photo, I made a severe paraphrase of the famous Samuel L. Jackson's line from "Pulp Fiction":
"The rules and tools of artistic composition are not the tyranny of evil photographers, but instead have always been the shepherd. "


Lastly- Rodney (The photographer who shot your example photo) doesn't appear to be in the WEEKLY anymore. It looks like his photos have been removed.

Yeap... it seems Rodney has left us... I wonder why.

ferlopez:
Well, shucks! He's got a good eye and sense of rhythm.

I have made my share of poor critiques in this group, and my apologies for that. Sometimes, in retrospect, I see that aspects of my critiques have even been wrong. In trying to be better about things, here are some aspects of right-speech that I have considered, and which maybe others will find helpful regarding photography critiques:
1. Is it factual? (If it is just my opinion, I might try to buffer my comments with a disclaimer that it is just my opinion or my bias).
2. Is it helpful? (You could be objectively correct about some flaw in a person’s photography, but if your comment is not going to encourage the person to continue taking pictures or if it could cause them to shut down any future participation, maybe better to hold off on the comment.)
3. Is it kind? (Are the comments spoken with good-will, and would the comments make the person feel that you are advocating for them as a photographer?)
4. Is it pleasant? (Would the reader find your comments endearing or would they find them simply bitter sounding? Again, if the person receiving the critique feels that you are advocating for them as a person and as a photographer, then even a very critical suggestion can still be endearing.)
5. Is it timely? (Yes, we have deadlines for posting comments. And, arguably, if someone is submitting to the group, they are requesting some useful criticism. But maybe, if someone is dead-set about taking photos a certain way for awhile, it is not necessary to tell them every week, especially if at this time they are not willing to listen to you. If that is the case, you might be open to the possibility that the future could bring a better time to bring it up).

TokyoZenPoetry: Words to live, and critique, by ;-) Thanks very much for posting this. I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating....critique is an opinion based judgement, and positioning it as such will go a long way towards gaining its acceptance by those receiving it.

I find it hard to articulate thing into words. Especially emotions. Which is hard when I am trying to say how an image makes me feel. But I am getting better at it. I know what I like and I know I have taste and an eye for detail. I have learned a lot from this group. I made a very cool video over the last few days. Anyone wanna critique it?

craig_Loechel:

I don't think I'm qualified to critique a video, but I would love to see it!

I could not disagree more strongly. When it comes to photography, art...and life in general, that statement makes a couple of critically important errors. 1) It assumes the majority opinion is the correct opinion. We can all site many, many cases where that has been proved wrong. 2) A photographer should never consider placing greater value on their own judgement, than they do to the opinions of others. Tell that to the countless famous photographers (and artists in general) who finally achieved greatness because they had the audacity to believe in their own work, when no one else did.

If I misread the intention of your statement, please let me know.

TokyoZenPoetry:
Thank you for this, words of wisdom that should serve us all as a reminder and a guidance.
We should print it and have it at hand, as a reference next to our computer screen.

craig_Loechel:
You make a good point and you're not alone in this respect. You are addressing it with courage and commitment by getting out of your comfort zone and challenging yourself to keep giving critiques, to find those elusive words and express your ideas and feelings.


Yes, of course I'd love to see that video!

ski 9:

Man! You guys are really holding my feet to the fire!

After thinking about it, I could have worded my "There is absolutely..." sentence differently. I was trying to stress the hubris of saying "I'm right and everybody else is wrong." Upon re-reading my statement, it's as hubristic as what I was trying to criticize. I should have left out the entirety of my over-enthusiastic "absolutely" paragraph and let the other parts speak for themselves.

I had just watched an episode of the Apple TV series "Severance," which is a work of fiction. There's a buffoon like character named Ricken Hale Ph.D., who wrote a self-help book called "The YOU YOU Are." One of the lines in his book says: "My failure to break into the literary world in my 20's was devastating, yet it taught me a valuable lesson. That it was not me who was wrong, but literature itself, and that to truly find my place in that world, I would first need to break it entirely."

Of course, there's the possibility that any photographer could be a super-genius, and their work and ideas will eventually replace centuries-old artistic composition and design conventions.

There are many cases where artistic hierarchy and norms were up-ended by unconventional artists whose work was rejected by the majority, yet their work prevailed.

I have seen and admired many bold and unconventional artistic works that do not appeal to the majority.

There's nothing wrong with any artist aspiring to be great. Of course, having the "audacity to believe in their own work" is admirable. If an artist doesn't believe in their own work, they might as well stop creating. It's also good to be assertive and promote your work, despite the naysayers.

For the average, non-super-genius photographer (such as myself)- I believe that when faced with continual and reasonable criticisms from viewers, a photographer should be absolutely sure they know what they are doing if they blame the viewer and not what's going on in their photo, for those rejections.
I often post photos on Facebook and share them with friends in other places. EVERYBODY always tells me that my photography is great, and your stuff ought to be in museums and all of that kind of happy-stuff. Once I started putting my photos into groups like the WEEKLY (Not just on Flickr) I got a completely different kind of feedback, and much of it was negative. As much as I appreciated the positive feedback, I learned more from that negative feedback. I might have disagreed with the criticisms, but it gave me a chance to revisit why I thought it was wrong, and sometimes I was able to tweak a process, even if the critique was technically wrong. The correct criticisms were invaluable, and one of those things where you can really believe the Internet is a good thing!

To the super-geniuses out there- go ahead and do your thing, with my best wishes. I look forward to seeing your work in the future. When it comes to those gifted types, I don't think it really makes any difference what they think about the viewer/listener- stuff just flows out of them.
To those left on the planet Earth, I say listen carefully to those critiques and work on building your knowledge, skills, and then practice, practice, practice. Then try to do something to teach others.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt6mMD48fb4

craig_Loechel:
Good job on the video, Craig!
I've got a program called Camtasia that's pretty user-friendly for editing videos. I've also got Adobe Premier as part of Creative Cloud, but I don't think it has the annotations and effects I would like to use to create my Photoshop manipulations videos. Camtasia automatically applies graphical effects like mouse clicks, overlays, etc.

I often create tutorial videos where I work. When I first started doing that, it took me two days to produce a 20-minute video. Once I got used to the process, a 20-minute video took about an hour. It helps to have a headset for the audio.


It looks like whatever software you used did an excellent job- it's very clear, and I didn't see any glitches. It would have been nice to have a video of you shooting the droplets, but that would have been in total darkness!

Keeper!

Teddy Alfrey:

Thank you Teddy. I used Davinci Resolve free version, It is excellent but it is also new to me and as with anything new it has a steep learning curve. I did not work hard on my lighting or camera work and composition. I just wanted to get the video out if you know what I mean. I will work hard on the next one.

Hi,
New here. I have no real training in photography, I just picked up a camera one day and found a love I was just amazed at. Now even if I don't have a camera in my hands I am looking and wondering how I can make what my eyes see translate clearly into my camera.
I just joined this group a few weeks ago, I figured real feed back could only help, and I like the idea that the group decides what stays in the pool, instead of one or two people. The only thing that gave me pause about joining this group was the critiques requirement , I wasn't sure I could do that. As I said I have no training and have little technical experience , so how could I critique other peoples work. I decided to just say what I liked or didn't like about the photo, and then ask myself is this something I would like seeing hanging on display.

Welcome, and I think that you are absolutely right. I find that simply articulating what I like and what I don’t like about an image, is the most valuable aspect of this group for me. There may be some who will quote “The Rules” (as I might too, sometimes), but IMO what is most important is what you as the viewer like to see, and what you as the artist like to do. I think that you just need to be prepared to accept that your opinion may not match the next person’s opinion, nor does it have to. I think that no matter how “educated” that other opinion may be, how you feel about something is how you feel about it, and that's never wrong.

A good approach, I think!

JoeyK63: Welcome to the group. Yes, nice approach. Your vote is as good as any other.

In my opinion;
…resolution is a very interesting vector to work with in digital-imaging. With the modern super-res consumer cameras available, not to mention high-quality upscaling, such as Lightroom “enhance”, the image that can be seen by the viewer may be something entirely different from what the artist saw through the viewfinder. I believe that an interesting challenge in today’s world is to make the image work at ALL the resolutions available to the final viewer.

To me, there are several different categories of resolution, and these parallel the sequence of how I am usually exposed to an image;

* There is the thumbnail/preview-size…
* the fit-screen-on-a-laptop size…
* the fit-screen-on-a-large-monitor size…
* and there is the standard 100% display-size on Flickr, which is 6144px in the largest dimension. I don’t usually go to the trouble to look for anything bigger.

Any image will evolve dramatically through this resolution progression, especially if you can really go all the way to 6144. The challenge, in my mind, is to make an image work at each one of these levels. I want the thumbnail of my image to be interesting enough to attract the viewer's attention in the pool, and make them want to open the file on the laptop, which should make the viewer want to open the file on a large monitor for better detail, which should make the viewer want to go to the full, 100% view.

For voting purposes, I always assume that the “proper” as-intended size is fit-screen on a large, 4k monitor (or 100%, if smaller). I sometimes find that this is the *only* resolution where the image truly works for me, however. It is not uncommon for me to think that something is dull-and-boring at low-res, only to love it after I force myself to bring it up on a large monitor anyway. By contrast, I think that it is very impressive when there are “hooks” at each resolution stage that make me want to go farther and see more, and this is what I mean by the resolution-vector.

Photojournalism, Art, and the Mongrel
IMO;

There may be many styles of photography out there, but I think that two of the major ones are what I call “Photojournalism-Photography” (including much of the popular subset, “street-photography”), and “Art-Photography”. I think that many of the philosophical arguments between photographers can stem from this distinction, but I also think that both basic styles have their place, and both can be great.

An almost sacred element of the photojournalism-style of photography is to be “Real”, with a capital-R. In this style, it is important to be as objective as possible, and so there is a valid interest in minimizing “alterations” to what the camera is programmed to record as a SOOC-JPG. Of course, we all know that there is no such thing as an “unaltered” digital image, since the data of the sensor is always altered as the JPG file is created, but in photojournalism-style you ignore that, or at least, try to keep those alterations “impersonal and objective” by relying on the camera algorithm to make those development decisions.

I think that another key objective of the photojournalism-style is to remove the photographer from the scene as much as possible. I think that a goal of this style is for the photographer, and therefore the viewer, to be made invisible in the image. It is as if we are merely observing this moment of Objective Reality as a disconnected being in another dimension.

From the perspective of an art-style photographer, the photojournalism-style is deliberately throwing away 50% of what makes photography creative and interesting. On the other hand, it is VERY impressive when a great shot can be produced with “one arm tied behind your back” like this. The point is, photojournalism-style is really, REALLY hard to do well.

Since the photojournalism-style refuses to use any secondary creative tools to make the image emotional and impactful, then THE most important thing becomes the visual story. Whether it is a body in front of a destroyed tank in the Ukraine, or a naked girl running down a road in Vietnam, or a wall of dust approaching an abandoned farmhouse, the visual story is everything. We need to see the point of the image immediately, and it needs to be compelling and emotional all by itself, and without any words. Photojournalism rules say that you aren’t allowed to “improve” the image in any way, including by altering the environment pre-snap. Doing something great with all of these limitations is a very high bar to reach.

We have seen some fabulous photojournalism-style work in this group. The memory of a random abused woman in a crowd is still with me, as is Lion Man. The greats, like those, also have other compositional and photographic elements in them, but first, it is about the visual story.

I think that much more common than the great photojournalism-style shots that we have seen, are the not-so-great. These are often people trying to do “art-photography” with composition and subject, while still declaring allegiance to the very restrictive “photojournalism-style” rules. These folks insist that the work be SOOC, and that the environment be unaltered. At the same time however, they are trying to be “artsy” with geometric macro shapes and in-camera effects like skew and soft lenses, rather than concentrating on the direct, sledgehammer visual story that great photojournalism-style photography is all about.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with switch-hitting, and alternating styles from time to time, but a mere blending of these two styles into a single image is likely to seem flat and unappealing as art-style, as well as pointless and obscure as photojournalism-style. Way too often, the mongrel is the worst of the parents, not the best.

I think that if you want to do photojournalism-style photography, then the visual story is everything, and it needs to be clear, without using any words, and it needs to be compelling at an emotional level. On the other hand, if you want to do art-style, then I say; free yourself from photojournalism’s restrictive rules, because in art-style, you are not showing me what The Algorithm says is there, you are showing me the vision of what you personally “See” there.

Something I've noticed from a lot of people in this group is an obsession with contrast. Not only on my pictures but on others' too, a common comment is either about the lack of strong contrast or praise about contrast.

Personally, I don't understand the hype about contrast. And to me, a lot of the pictures that get praised for high contrast look too artificial to me, like the contrast was turned up to the max in editing.

Why is contrast so often seen as what makes or breaks a picture?

ben_olson:

Skillful use of the general range of tones in a photo can be one of many things that can "make a picture." Low contrast can work if done right. High contrast can work, if done right.
One could ask:
"Why is the way a photo is focused, so often seen as what makes or breaks a picture?"
"Why are elements that draw attention away from the subject of a photo, so often seen as what makes or breaks a picture?"
"Why is artistic composition, so often seen as what makes or breaks a picture?"

Sure, but this group seems to have a strong focus on contrast specifically.

ben_olson:

Guilty! I mostly prefer contrast-rich images. Although there certainly is a limit when it's too much.

I guess everybody has his pet peeves. For me, it's the focus on reduction. Post a minimal image and chances are that it will go directly to the most-favoured group. I enjoy images where a lot is going on. But those types have a hard time here. Maybe rightfully so, as they bear a high risk of being too snapshot-like.

Jörg Schäfer:

IMO, busy images are hard to do well, but I think they can be great if there is a strong composition and/or center-of-interest.

I still remember one that Catherine did some time ago of a city street, with strong lines and a brilliant orange sign in the middle. There were dozens of things going on in there, but the “anchor” was there too. Just a personal opinion, of course.

ben_olson: Tastes change over time. Contrast took on greater importance with the advent of digital imagery and post processing. High contrast images "pop" more on the screen. But pop is relative, and operates on a continuum....the more people seek to include it in their images, the greater the amount necessary to make the image stand out from the pack. To some extent, the same is true when it comes to sharp focus. Improved lenses and digital technology resulted in a demand for pin sharp focus. Unfortunately, the continued demand for increased contrast and focus can lead to sacrificing artistic intention.


The saving grace is that tastes are not static. As the demand for poppy/sharp images increases, so will the likelihood that low contrast, softer images will take on greater significance.

I find "snapshot" to be a little too derogatory of a word sometimes. Some of the world's best photos were taken without much thought put into them. Not every picture has to be as planned out as an Ansel Adams piece.

ben_olson:

There's nothing wrong or derogatory about snapshots. I use them every day (in every way?) with my iPhone to paste into my personal journal. I'll take a photo of my wife, adding notes to her garden diary. I'll take a snapshot of how one of our cats is curled under a sunbeam. Maybe that omelet that I made looks great!- snapshot! I'll sometimes take snapshots that aren't even particularly interesting, just to help me jog my memory so that I can catch up on days in my journal that I missed.
Anytime I take one of these snapshots, I'll use five seconds to consider the angle and five seconds to consider the composition, then shoot. Now and then, I'll take a snapshot that looks to be good enough for me to consider it as something more than a snapshot—just those ten seconds of consideration opened the path to allow the photo to rise above a snapshot.
When I take these snapshots, I don't concern myself much with distracting elements or perfect composition, and the iPhone usually does an excellent job with the camera settings. I don't care if there are distracting elements in the snapshot I just took of the new roses I just watered this morning. I took a photo of my neighbor cutting off the top part of one of his tall trees, and I didn't care that was a utility box in the foreground that would totally distract the viewer's eye away from my neighbor perched high in the tree. I just wanted a record of the event.
My father took photos and 8 mm movies of my brothers and me in the 1950s. His photo work wasn't worth much more than a snapshot, but there is great value to me. I wish he had turned his camera around on some downtown shots with the old businesses, etc. I'm a member of a Facebook group that shares photos and stories about the history of my hometown. Even the most god-awful, poorly composed, exposed, scratched, and faded photos are valuable, memory-inducing devices that get dozens of comments. I frequently tell the younger folks in the group to walk downtown and take some snapshots of all the business fronts and people walking around. In thirty or forty years, you'll be a hero to all your friends for saving these treasures!

It's another thing regarding photos submitted for critical review and precisely what's happening in the WEEKLY.
As problems with focus, composition, exposure, geometry, over-processing, etc., occur or accumulate, saying something is "too snapshot-like" can be charitable. By a long shot, many worse things can be said about photos with problems. Many photos don't rise to the level of being a snapshot. As I think about it, "snapshot-like" is just one small step below being a good photo. It's not a photo that "sucks," but it's not exactly worthy of being especially good.

I frequently use "too snapshot-like" to communicate that not enough work has been done on a photo. However, you don't have to go all Ansel Adams on a scene to make a decent photograph.
Another way to look at it is when a photo appears to be the only photo taken of a scene, and the photographer moves on to another. I think that a photographer has to start somewhere, and getting that first, impulsive shot is necessary, but not creating follow-ups of the same scene has a 90% chance that that one shot will be "too snapshot-like." I say- "Get that "snapshot" out of your system first, then the fun begins!"

snapshot
noun
snap·shot ˈsnap-ˌshät
1: a casual photograph made typically by an amateur with a small handheld camera

....think that pretty much covers it ;-)

No more snapshooting! I'll always use a tripod ;-)

So how does your dictionary define a snapshot of an OPA?

One of my favorite American sayings goes something like this:

"Every time you assume,
you're making an ass
of you and me"

The dictionary only defines a word. How and when an individual chooses to use it is up to them.
----------------------------------------------------------
I believe the saying is:

"Every time you assume,
you make an ass
of U and ME"

"Education is learning what you didn’t even know you didn’t know'

casual is an assumption
amateur is an assumption
small is an assumption
handheld is an assumption


typical is insidious, provocative in a bad way, setting up the basis for the reader to believe that behind a "snapshot" most certainly there is an amateur who spent little or no effort, intention, or creativity on the capture of the image


All of that is flat out wrong and misleading. Therefore that is a terrible and misleading definition that I even call toxic because it discourages photographers and artists from exploring, developing, and mastering a perfectly valid creative technique.

That is a form of cancellation


snap is a very brief period of time
shot the action of taking a photograph


snapshot = snap + shot
The only valid meaning of snapshot is then a photograph taken very quickly.
A snapshot is a technique, and by extension, the photograph product of this technique.

Like any other technique, results can be good or bad depending on how this technique was applied.

There is absolutely no qualifier for the photographer, the equipment, or quality of anything in the definition of "snapshot"

I have shared previously in this thread several examples of well known and accomplished photographers who made of the "snapshot" their favorite and even only technique.

I have no doubt these artists produced garbage for a long time until they mastered this technique. I can also imagine they may even have a large amount of discards. Yet their portfolio of published and acclaimed work is made of snapshots they took following a method of their own development.

Several of the images in my pool can be considered "snapshots", many of which where voted "keeper" and "most favorite" in this group. Nobody ever knew they were snapshots.

ferlopez: As far as I can see, you are the one making an assumption about how the dictionary defines the term. Like I said above, how you employ the word, or the meanings you choose to ascribe to it, are totally up to you.

As for me, I can happily go with snapshot being a quickly made shot with a small handheld camera, unusually made by an amateur photographer. And, I can do so without attaching all the emotional baggage you seem to want to put with it. I have taken thousands and thousands of snaps, and will happily continue to do so. My recognition of the fact they are "snapshots" does not diminish them in any way for me. I feel the same about snaps taken by others. To me, a photograph is either good or bad....no matter how it was generated, or classified. Were that not the case, I would not be such a prolific user of a 5+ year old camera phone.....many images of which I post here.

Other than that, take it up with the Merriam-Webster. I'm sure they'd welcome your comments.

ski 9: Like I said, don't take it personal and I am taking it up with the proposed definition.

It is that definition what's giving meaning to the word, therefore defining it in a certain way. As recipient of such definition I am expected to accept it as factual. It is that sentence what has meaning, it is not me who brings meaning to the sentence.

I reject that sentences and bring a different understanding (definition) to the word which is different.

We're talking about "snapshots" in the context of Weekly, where members oftentimes freeflight submissions for being too "snapshot looking", therefore associating the idea of "snapshot" to a bad thing to be avoided. Cancellation.

Daidō Moriyama is "snapshot looking"

Camera throwing a DSLR creates unique "snapshots" impossible any other way and escapes Merriam-Webster's definition

www.picturecorrect.com/camera-throwing-an-interesting-ris...

I don't "seem to wrap any baggage" on the idea of snapshots
people wrapped the baggage, the baggage is real. and I while I know they mean well and have good intentions, I find it extremely detrimental to what they're trying to defend.

I agree with you, a photograph is good or bad because of its qualities, not the methods and techniques used to capture it. Therefore "snapshot" as a qualifier is not helpful.

That's all I'm trying to convey.

I understand your intent and appreciate it. But, it IS you who are bringing a particular meaning and, dare I say it, set of values, to the term....i.e. the baggage. We all do that....no harm, no foul. In this case, we do it differently. For me (and many others), the term isn't value-based, laden with emotional content. Rather, it is simply a way to describe the manner in which a photo was generated and, likely, by whom. Given that, I don't see it as harmful, or helpful.....only descriptive. To reiterate, I recognize that others may not see the term the same way, but I can't (and won't) be responsible for what they think &/or assume.

ferlopez:
I don't see the point in going into the weeds about the definition of a snapshot. Snapshot has a recognized definition.
What's in the dictionary is perfectly fine, and the term can be used as a point of reference, almost like a "benchmark."
Is it casual, "Well, yes, but holy cow, I don't know! Help me, Mr. Wizard!" <- Really?
It reminds me of the old philosophy student conversations about "Is the table really there?"

There's nothing wrong with snapshots, and it's not a derogatory term. I take snapshots all the time and enjoy seeing other people's snapshots. But I weep if we are expected to think that a "snapshot" can mean anything that anybody wants for any reason.
When I have my large camera on a tripod, after carefully flaying the legs low enough to get a flower just right and down low, then I strategically place my flash to bring in the light just the way I want and then focus stack that shot, including 60 images, that photo is just as likely to suck as any; however, it's was not a snapshot. Even if it ends up being a stinker, it still wasn't a snapshot, and it's not likely anyone will make a claim that it's "too snapshot-like," even though they dislike the photo.

Another definition of a snapshot isn't about photography:
"Snapshot- the way that a particular figure or set of figures gives an understanding of a situation at a particular time."

I constantly use photographic snapshots for my daily journal to give "an understanding of a situation at a particular time."

If I were to make up a new definition, it might be:
Snapshot- An informal or casual photograph that's main goal is to depict a moment in time, with little or no attention to artistry.

I woke up a few days ago, checked my phone for the time, and noticed my reflection in the glass before I took off my CPAC mask. I thought, what the hay! I'll take a selfie! I wasn't wearing my bifocals and the best I could do was line up the shape of my head on the screen. I will never (ever) post this to Flickr, but it went into my journal and my wife is still laughing about it. I was concerned about getting my head into the frame, but that was it. I just wanted that "moment in time" and didn't care about artistry- a snapshot.

I see some photos in the WEEKLY, that seem to look like it was shot simply to depict a "moment in time" with nothing going on compositionally at all. That sure looks "snapshot-like" to me. Again, it's not a derogatory term, it's just an accurate description of it only being a moment and time with no artistry.

Of course, I only assume that a particular photo has little or no artistry. However, don't these assumptions go both ways? If a viewer is examining a photograph, they might be looking for evidence of artistry. When no evidence can be found, the viewer might be missing details in the photograph, or there simply isn't evidence to suggest artistry. Usually, that might is pretty small.
It's up to the photographer to supply evidence of artistry. Without the evidence, it might be a snapshot, but it might be that it's simply a bad photo that doesn't even rise to the level of snapshotedness.

Agree with Teddy.

Most of Henri Cartier Bresson's images are snapshots. Ditto many other "masters".

Ditto much of photo-journalism images.

To me, what's important is whether it is well shot (even if not technically perfect), and whether it tells a story or captures and communicates an emotion - and that's the art inherent in the image and its capture.

The masters were able to do that.

The difficulty about "snapshot" is with the definition and the range of images attached to it. A snapshot can be brilliant, but likewise a snapshot can be rubbish.

Here's a couple of my snapshots, and one taken in 1935 by my grandfather of my mother. Like them or leave them - it's up to you. The common elements are that they were all spur of the moment, there was no posing or mucking around with lenses or other equipment, all existing light, they all involve people - a human element - and they all tell a story. But none of them are technically brilliant.

Whether it's a snapshot or a planned or well-deliberated shot, I go with first impression, starting with the thumbnail. Then I proceed to explore the bigger image and spot details that could add to the appeal of the image; so a larger image is nearly a must for me (note: not the largest possible). As I explore the details (or lack of it); some technical specs might come out, like IQ, sharpness issues, halos, pixel bonding... but if those aren't too obvious or tolerable, I always go with first impression, or the impact and how the image resonates with my feelings or emotions. Having a story is always a plus, or at least one that I could conjure even if that wasn't the photographer's intent—I have a good imagination ;)

Bruce Kerridge: Hi Bruce!!!

ski 9:
Teddy Alfrey:

So again, when the vote is freeflight and the reason is "this is a snapshot" or "too snapshot-like"... how does that match your argument? Since you admit snapshots can be great, you are also making my case.

We all want critiques that are meaningful.
Rejecting an image for being a "snapshot" is not meaningful.
You admit that snapshots can be great, even have high artistic value,
therefore rejecting an image for being a snapshot implies snapshots lead to bad images.
This is derogatory towards all snapshots,
and those who try to master that as a style or technique.

I don't have a problem with people understanding an image as a snapshot,
The problem comes when that is used as the reason for rejecting it.
The problem is also how that preconditions new photographers and their capacity to explore all techniques and creative ideas.

freeflighting an image for being a snapshot is no different than freeflighting a panning shot, or a long exposure, or focus stacking, or a pano-stitch, etc.

I rest my case.
No emotions, no baggage.
Pure logic.

I've been very busy these days. I think I mentioned that I'm in the middle of a project with a deadline. Nevertheless, I've been glancing at this discussion from time to time, though I haven't followed it in detail. I like
ferlopez:'s conclusion. So, now that we've settled that, I think it would be great if someone would write out a bulleted list of what you think turns a snapshot into "rubbish" or "garbage" (two adjectives I've seen used by those who affirm that the word "snapshot", by itself, is not enough of a descriptor to communicate what makes it a bad photo.) I, for one, would love to see such a list. Well, I like lists and this would help me to watch out for pitfalls. Just an idea.

ferlopez:

You've changed the discussion from your original objection about how the word is defined:

1: a casual photograph made typically by an amateur with a small handheld camera

to how the word can be employed in a negative sense, here at Weekly. An entirely different thing. I think we all agree that using the term "snapshot" as shorthand for an inferior image is bad form.

.....I rest my case ;-)

DrGregPhotos:

"rubbish" or "garbage", and similar adjectives, are terms that really don't warrant further discussion when it comes to critique. There are plenty of descriptive lists about good vs. bad photos, however. They usually include things that fall within these broad categories:

- Is the image in focus?
- Is the subject properly lit?
- Is the photographer using good composition?
- Is the photo interesting, or boring?
- is the processing appropriate for the subject?

As you can see, each category strives for objectivity,,,,, but all these assessments remain dependent on the subjective evaluation of each individual viewer.

My thinking is that of the five criteria listed by Dr Greg, if an image is a failure in number 4 (interest), nothing else matters. But an image of high interest can overcome fails in the other criteria. For example, Jeff Widener’s “Tank Man”, in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, was out of focus and had many other technical problems, yet many see it as one of the most powerful photos of the last 50 years.

Bruce Kerridge: I'm assuming you mean #4 in the list I posted in answer to 's question about a list? If so, I agree...interest level comes first, and can also overcome shortfalls in the other areas. It doesn't work in reverse, however. At least, for me. A boring photo can be in focus, properly composed and lit, and processed correctly....but none of those things will lift it above the commonplace. Especially today, when technology and readily available information make those things relatively easy to achieve.

ski 9 Totally agree with your point that nothing will save a boring photo. Reminds me of the old aphorism: the worst way to die is to die of boredom.

Can we change the subject a bit and talk about " SOFT" ? Before starting this comment I went and looked up " what does soft mean in photography " the amount of answers was to say the least mind boggling and no one seemed to actually agree about it. I see " SOFT " mentioned on many photos here, and like Snapshot it doesn't always mean a freeflight, but it is more often then not a photo killer.
So here's a question when is soft good, when isn't it good? or when's soft to soft or not soft enough? And the most important question for me, how do you decide something is soft? I mean if a picture is almost 3d in its crispness then it is obvious it is sharp, but sometimes I swear I need new glasses or a different monitor, because I will be looking at a photo and think how clear, how clean, with every detail visible and I vote keeper then everyone around me is saying " soft " freeflight .

JoeyK63:

If you're talking specifically about your two pictures this week, at least to my eyes they're fairly blurry. I mean no offense when I say this but you actually might be right that you need new glasses or a different monitor to see the issue in those two.

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/130196380@N03/52786941455/in/pool-weekly/]

This picture in particular looks very hazy and unsharp in a way that can't be easily saved in post-processing.

At 1/125 the shutter speed is too slow to capture at that focal length without motion blur. Compounded with an aperture of f/22 and a fairly high ISO, this picture was doomed to be unsharp when you pressed the shutter button.

On a Canon APS-C sensor, a 160mm focal length is equivalent to a full frame focal length of 259mm. A good rule of thumb is that when shooting handheld, you never want a shutter speed slower than 1/[your focal length's 35mm equivalent]. Unless you are using a tripod you should be careful about your shutter speed. The stabilization built into your lens can help, but only so much.

On top of that, animals move near-constantly, so you need a higher shutter speed to compensate for that.

I think something like this could be saved only through doing some very drastic stylized editing in post, like applying a posterization effect or making it into a 4 bit monochrome with very few shades of gray.

ben_olson: I actually wasn't talking about, my two photos this week. I was talking about other peoples that I have seen over time. But since you used the word "soft" on the photo, and blurry here in this conversation, is shot " soft " or just plain out of focus?
No offense taken, glasses are on the newer side as well as the monitor, but I am not seeing what others see. there is a photo I like that has been commented many times for softness and I don't see it. I actually am trying to find out, when is " soft " good, bad, and how to avoid it when you don't want it, short of buying a new lens.
With my photos more often then not I see what is being pointed out, maybe not until it is pointed out, but once it is pointed out I always enjoy reading how I can correct it. Some of my favorite critiques are the ones that point out what is wrong, what I might have done to get it wrong, and what I could do next time to get it right.
Now forgive me because I know what I type next is going to sound so amateur, but I have to ask. So that I know I am understanding , you are saying I should have had my SS at like 1/ 160 and my F-stop like at 8 or 10? My ISO is normally on auto.

JoeyK63:

I think that your shutter speed shouldn't ever be lower than maybe 1/300 when you're using your telephoto lens handheld. Your lens does have stablization so you can go a little bit under that, but I wouldn't recommend going too far. On an APS-C sensor you really should never have your f-stop lower than 10 because of diffraction . Also because this scene looks a little dark, I think you should have used exposure compensation to make it one or two stops brighter.

As for when a soft picture is good and when it's bad, I'd say intentionality is important. For example, I like to take pictures with my Holga camera. I know these pictures are going to be soft, so I choose subjects that I know will be interesting when they're soft.

Another thing is when the softness simply doesn't detract from the image. Sometimes softness gives a picture a dreamlike state.

I see many aspects of our discussions that I think could be improved:

a) Photos should meet basic technical standards.
It feels unfair when some posts are uploaded in XGA resolution (remember that old standard?) and others in high-res are nitpicked for technical flaws visible only at 200% magnification. There should be some consistency here to make the critique fair.

b) Photos should be judged within their genre.
An abstract close-up of colorful waterdrops doesn’t need to “tell a story”—that’s not its purpose. Similarly, some might find street photography too cluttered or too empty depending on personal preference, while others might love oversaturated landscapes but criticize less “natural” edits.

The point is: every genre has its own criteria—different boxes to tick or discuss. Personally, I know nothing about wildlife or macro photography, and I don’t have much interest in close-ups of waterdrops. That’s why I abstain from judging those photos. I’ll give my opinion as a viewer, but I don’t pretend to be a judge when I lack expertise.

c) Judgment consistency matters.
I’ve seen unfair or inconsistent judgments, even from experienced group members. Some photos get glowing feedback for what I feel are mediocre works, while others are heavily criticized for irrelevant details. This favoritism isn’t limited to new members either.

For instance, I’ve seen cases where a good photo was criticized for not being “perfect” enough to get a “keeper,” while a mediocre snapshot was awarded one. Sure, we’re human—we naturally like some people more than others. But personal bias shouldn’t influence the evaluation of creative work.

d) The “film photography bias.”
Film photos often seem to be rated higher than digital ones. Maybe it’s nostalgia, or maybe it’s because film is perceived as “harder” to shoot? But if I tie one hand behind my back and take long exposures with the other, does that make my photo better? Or should we judge the results, not the process?


Based on these issues, I wonder if we could discuss setting some standards for our group. Here are a few ideas:


Define technical standards.

Could we agree on a minimum resolution for photos posted in the weekly threads? Maybe admins could have access to EXIF data to ensure fairness (even if it’s not visible to voters).


Only vote on photos when qualified.

If we don’t have enough knowledge to provide meaningful feedback, we could abstain from voting but still comment as viewers. This way, we fulfill the expectation to participate without giving uninformed votes.


Consider anonymizing submissions.

Removing the photographer’s identity could help reduce personal bias in critiques and voting.


Agree on a critique structure or code.

Could we establish a basic structure for feedback? It doesn’t have to be complicated. Even kids learn this in school. At the very least, we could agree on some key elements that every critique should include.


Finally, I’d like to address the tone of our feedback. In my photos, I often see speculation presented as fact. But as the photographer, I know what really happened on-site. How can someone claim to know better when they weren’t there? If we know something, we should present it as fact. If we’re guessing, let’s present it as a guess.

To summarize:
a) Can we define basic technical submission standards (resolution, optional EXIF for admins)?
b) Can we agree only to vote when we’re qualified to critique meaningfully? Comments as opinions are fine, but votes should come from informed judgment.
c) Could submissions be anonymized to reduce bias?
d) Could we create a structure or code for critiques to ensure consistency and fairness?

I think these changes could help improve the quality of our discussions and make the group more constructive and respectful for everyone involved.

I think that your standards are great… for you… and I think that it is useful for all of us to have you to articulate them.

For me, The Weekly group is about the open exploration of 21st-century imaging art, and the examination of my own feelings and preferences in digital-imaging. I like what I like, and I don’t like what I don’t like, and there is no reason why anyone else should feel any pressure to agree with me. I find it personally useful to try to identify the reasons why I feel the way that I do about a piece, but those underlying subjective emotions about a work cannot be regulated, forced to be consistent, or homogenized into a set of objective “rules”.

I can say that I do try to be clear in my comments that these are strictly personal opinion and preference, and not any kind of Universal Truth. Since there is no money or meaningful prize for “winning” a Weekly vote, none of this really matters anyway.

I think that consistency and conformity in the standards that we use for our comments is pointless, and probably impossible. IMO, consensus is both boring and Borg, and I think that is the opposite of Art, but if you want your art to be evaluated by an “objective” AI-algorithm, I am sure that they are available.

John-Pa:

no, john, that’s not the point i’m making, and it’s not my intention to impose rigid standards on others. i absolutely agree that art is subjective—what resonates with one person might not with another, and that’s a fundamental part of what makes art so meaningful. personal preferences should, and must, play a role in how we interpret and evaluate creative work.

however, when it comes to the weekly group, we’re not just talking about personal enjoyment; there is a competitive element involved. whether a photo gets a keeper or freeflight can determine its fate in the group, and that process naturally invites a certain level of scrutiny. i’m simply suggesting that this judgment—while it will always reflect personal taste—should also include a measure of fairness and consistency.

this doesn’t mean imposing “universal rules” on art or suppressing individual perspectives. rather, it’s about avoiding unjustified critiques, factual errors, or comments that feel arbitrary. even subjective opinions can be expressed in ways that are respectful, thoughtful, and informed.

i’m not advocating for conformity or AI-like evaluations; that would indeed run counter to the spirit of art. but a more structured approach to critique—where comments are meaningful and constructive—could elevate the quality of discussions in the group. instead of seeing this as "boring" or "borg," perhaps we could think of it as a way to foster deeper, more valuable conversations about the art we all care about.

I agree with avwedemeyer: for the most part.
We could go into the minutiae of the whole thing, but that's not practical. "Maybe," a fine-tuning of things would be useful, but I'm OK with the way things are now.
Being an anal technician, I tend to stray away from entering into the world of illustration or digital painting. I like to think of a photograph as a destination instead of a starting point. Not that that there's anything wrong with illustration and digital painting, but my limited-expertise doesn't extend to those areas. Using Photoshop over-processing artifacts is one of those things I consider to be digital painting. I kind of feel like photographers should be more in the business of photography, than adding things to the original image, which is why I abstain from commenting on some fine images- I don't want to go down that bunny hole, and spend my time on things that are included what my camera graciously provides me. That doesn't make me a better image maker, but I like the warm and fuzzy confines of what my friendly device gives me.
Of course, I will never think that images that fall outside my definition should be disallowed!
When I see various genres of photography, I like to think I'm putting on my "street photograph," "macro," "flower," "architecture," etc. "hat" when I evaluate these photos.
On another site, a reviewer once told me that the only "true photography" was street photography. There are a LOT of opinions out there, and it doesn't help that 95% of us don't have enough grammatical/communication skills (including me) to avoid confusing comments, in this relentless and episodic form.
I'm perfectly OK with the way things are, but if anybody wants to tweak anything, I would happy to engage in discussions about it.

avwedemeyer:

Regarding your summary points
a) But what's the point? some fantastic work submitted previously was extremely low res. Or with non existent EXIF data. Wouldn't that un-necessarily exclude it?
b) What defines "qualified"? I'm genuinely interested in what you had in mind here. As far as I'm aware the vast majority of us here are amateurs. I dont mind getting "qualified". But how?
c) Completely agree about this one. I open each photo on large and write down my vote and comment on notepad before looking at who took it or opening the discussion. After I write my comment, I read the photographer's description if available. Maybe then edit something, usually not. I then submit my vote and comment. And then read the other votes and comments in the discussion.
d) Interesting proposal. I would back a recommended but not mandatory structure.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to share your thoughts and post them here. Your commitment to the group is evident, and as a long-time member, I greatly appreciate it. I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to the points you’ve raised, as well as your suggestions for improvement. As an Admin, however, I’d prefer to wait a bit longer, to allow other members the chance to weigh in.

In the meantime, I’m including some general remarks on the validity of critique groups like Weekly, made by a photographer in a Reddit photography group, some 12 years ago. From my perspective, it serves as a precursor to this topic, and plays a role in the overall topic of this discussion thread, What Makes A Keeper? I’d love to hear member thoughts on this, as well as on the specifics you've outlined above.

NYCphotographer - 12years ago
Here's my .02 as a working professional photographer (former photojournalist, now editorial fashion, commercial and portraits)

No website or forum that critiques individual photos is worth a damn. Single photograph without the context of a larger body of work, style or story cannot be judged except for composition or lighting. For a lot of people they think these two elements make the photo. In reality, these two are the two least important things to what makes a great photograph. What make a great photograph is not what you read in those how to photography books.

There are four elements to making a good photograph. The least important thing in photo is composition. The second least is lighting. If you have both, you merely have a pretty photos...but that only scratches the surface. The second most important is the timing, or as HCB would call it, the decisive moment. However, without all three of these you can still make an important and amazing photograph. Intimacy...it is intimacy that make a truly outstanding image. It can be the intimacy in the photograph it self, or the connection between the photographer and the subject. It can even be the intimacy for the moment. If your house burned down and you can only save one photo, what would it be? It is probably the photograph of your family. Those pictures most dear to us share this intimacy. The lighting is probably crap, the composition is shit, and there's probably not even a moment cause everyone is giving their best fake smile...but we are drawn to these photos because of our relationship to that photograph. This relationship is the most difficult and most worth while part of photography to master and learn...and it should be the first thing we learn. It is through going down this path, that our photographs not only matter more to us, but through it connect with those who we show them to. This intimacy cuts through all the rules and gets right at the heart and people recognizes it without knowing why.

It is in this vein that photographer should always work towards a series rather than making single photos. In addition when looking for critiques, present your works to respected photographers, editors or teachers (if you strive to be a professional). Asking the advice of your peers merely serves as a circle jerk of praise or getting people to nitpick minor elements that are bias on their taste. Professionals or serious photographers understand not only what makes their photos so effective but also what works for those who do not photograph similar to them. It is their advice you should seek. Sadly I know of no working pro or others of this calibre who browse websites and leave comments of substance.

The best thing for a young or amateur photographer to do is to consistently look at the work of amazing photographers. Get off flickr, fm, 500px whatever and start looking on great photo agencies. Magnum, Vu, VII, institute, art partner, art and commerce, Jed root, as well as smaller photo collectives. See a photographers style and understand why it works. Then from there train you eye to not only take good photos but photos of substance and personal voice. Anyone can be taught to make a beautiful photo, but we should all strive to make work that is personal and initimate.

EDIT: Furthermore, I think there is a common misunderstanding the photo community...too often people make want to make beautiful photographs. As such, they go out looking for advice on how to achieve this. As photographers, we should not be focusing on making beautiful single images. A great photographer understands that beauty without substance is non-personal and common. The greatest photographers in the world never went out to make a beautiful image...the result may be call beautiful, but it is the content and context that makes them so great. Avedon, Arbus, Capa, HCB, Eddie Adams, Ansel Adams, Moriyama, Newton, Martin Parr, Robert Frank, Ryan McGinley, Leibovitz (earlier in her career), etc etc all make captivating, personal work...some are gritty, some have horrible composition, lighting, all these things photographers on these forums are taught are firm rules. Most of them, take their name out of the photo and display them as single images for people to critique and they would be ripped apart by these arm chair photographers. However, when you see their work as a whole, you understand...they mades pictures are not meant to seen as single pieces pieces but as an entire narrative or style. It's as if you take a still grab from a movie and judge a director based on that one frame. Go make your own story and let your camera speak for you. It sounds like art school bullshit, but this is the real stuff that you'll hear repeated over and over again by those who make photography their passion.

Your toughest critic should always be yourself and learn to trust your instinct and feeling.

While I agree that there is always room for improvement in the group, I’m not convinced that institution of a new set of rules or criteria is the answer. In that regard, I started to respond by addressing each of your points and suggestions individually, but soon realized that, from my perspective, there is an underlying issue: that of the real purpose of the group.

I’ve always seen the voting (keeper or freeflight) as nothing more than an expression of someone’s opinion about another member’s image. Admittedly, some of those opinions are more informed than others, but that is the nature of the beast. The Weekly Group is comprised of members with a diversity of photographic backgrounds and ability, ranging from experienced professional to absolute neophytes. All have been welcomed, as have their opinions….informed or otherwise. As such, they should always be taken with a grain of salt. In that regard, I posted the following some time ago in a discussion among the Admins:

Critique is less about the expertise or intentions of the creator and more about the subjective interpretations and perspectives of the viewer. It's not a judgment of the creator's skill, but rather an exploration of how the work resonates—or doesn’t—with different audiences. That’s precisely what makes critique valuable; it’s a way to engage with the diversity of human experience and perspectives, regardless of their experience or expertise.

With that in mind, we have to accept the inevitable inequities that come along with opinion laden “critiques.” We can try to expunge them through the institution of rules, and requirements but, to my mind, that may also serve to curtail membership, dampen the free flow of individual perspectives, and probably will not rule out biases anyway.

To address NYCphotographer’s point about, “No website or forum that critiques individual photos is worth a damn.” Though he makes some valid points later in his response, I will again fall back on the paragraph above. Any critique can be valuable, if seen in the light of it being “….an exploration of how the work resonates—or doesn’t—with different audiences.”

I've learned a lot from the criticism of my photos in this group and others, and I hope that the criticism that I give will help others, too. So, I strongly disagree that this group, and others, is not "worth a damn."
If a photographer genuinely believes that "No website or forum that critiques individual photos is worth a damn." that photographer should simply not engage in websites or forums having to do with critiques, and if it's actually not "worth a damn," why even engage in such a group, unless you are a boorish ass trying to stir resentment?

My wife is a retired professor of philosophy and used to run a weekly group/round table discussion where grad students would present a paper that was a maximum of six double-spaced pages or a talk that would not exceed twenty minutes. At the end of that submission, students would go one at a time, saying something "warm" and optimistic about the presentation. Once all the students had done this, they would start again with "questions and suggestions." My wife says philosophers have "sharp knives" ready for cut-throat criticism, but her goal was to foster a kinder, more productive, and less dog-eat-dog way of going about things. They never use a thumbs up/down, Cool/Uncool, Keeper/Freeflight label.
Of course, that's a group around a table or during a Zoom meeting; we don't have that in chat groups. I like to refer to chat, texting, and messaging as being dangerously "episodic" since there is no natural, face-to-face, back-and-forth real-time conversation. But we are stuck with that with online groups.

An argument could be made that we should eliminate the keeper/freeflight thing, but I would argue against such a thing.


Says it all, and very well! It might be a good idea to make this post more prominent (like right at the top of the discussion list) and always refer to it with new members.

ski 9:


Thank you for your reply. Of course, I’m aware that “beauty lies in the eye of the beholder,” which seems to be your point. I just find some of the critiques factually incorrect and, in their tone, disrespectful. Even with my own photos, I’m often surprised by some members who criticize things with a high level of scrutiny that none of their own images manage to meet. Perhaps that’s the nature of such platforms.

Let's also consider the lengthy quote you shared, which—on closer inspection—presents a paradoxical argument. It raises a fundamental question: What’s the point of members writing critiques? My initial thought was that, as a beginner, I could learn something here—that experienced photographers would point out flaws in my images. And that did happen to some extent. I can only speak from my experience and see a wide range of comments between “don’t like it, freeflight” and, for example, Teddy’s detailed, explanatory feedback.

Of course, it’s up to me whether or not I assign the same relevance to something like “worm artifacts.” But it’s still an opinion that’s reasoned and comprehensible. I’m not claiming that my own critiques are always consistent or sufficiently well-argued. But that’s what led me to the idea that critiques don’t achieve much if they’re given simply because they’re required in the forum or—following the argument in the quote—if they provide no benefit to the creator of the work.

I would find an actual discussion about a photo much more meaningful. For instance, if a critique on one of my photos suggests a different crop, it’s valuable if I can respond and we can see whether the critic agrees with my reasoning or not. I’ve occasionally replied to critiques, but I’ve rarely received any responses in return. I also don’t enjoy reading comments from photographers—whether under my work or others’—that provide no artistic or intellectual value.

Given that my own proposed solutions, for understandable reasons and legitimate matters of taste, have not gained much traction, we probably won’t get much further here. However, I find Teddy’s idea of seriously discussing images very exciting! A direct exchange is far more interesting, as it might prevent careless or offhand comments and would likely attract only members genuinely interested in engaging with both their work and others. If you decide to implement something like this, I’m in! Practically speaking, we’d just need to agree on a global time. 😉

The conversation about starting a Weekly Group Zoom call has been moved here:

Zoom Call Discussion

ski 9:

Perfect! Thanks, buddy!

I’m new to the group, although not new to Flickr. I find myself critiquing the photos that get my attention either because they have a “wow factor" or they are just very ordinary.

It’s a keeper for me if it shows creativity first. What grabbed my attention? Then I look at the skills of the photographer- composition, tonal values, framing and more. If the image has a "wow factor" then it would be a keeper even if those other elements are not all on point. I give freeflight to those images that are just ordinary, and seem to be snapshots we see everyday on friends’ social media posts.

I’m not very wordy, so I keep my critiques short but try to be specific. I’ve been shooting for a long time, have been on Flickr 20 years, and in many photography clubs through the years. Hopefully, I will be a good group member and share my opinion constructively.