Paul Ferrara wrote:
Geez, do I now get to be MM's official critiquer?

I don't do that great a job and rarely try to get into the photographer's head as to why he did something in a particular way.  I just point out things that I notice that go against traditional portraiture (cut off part of the left eye, etc).  And also items like failure to adust levels (so many folks do this).

I'm also guilty of being a smart-ass at times.  Some images are so bad (technically), I wonder why it got posted for critique in the first place.  Folks get to see a lot of great work on MM, it makes me wonder.

Paul

I hope not. I noticed you used the word traditional, not everyone is going to be traditional with their shots, you as a photographer should be able to know that as well as understand such diversity such as that.....

Joe K. Perez wrote:
I agree with the comments regarding Paul's performance as a volunteer critic. His presence is consistent and he is honest without being brutal, or superficial. Furthermore, he is not selective of the people he will critic. I appreciate that about him.

Also, I appreciate others who volunteer their time to give a critique.

I agree, but I think Paul is very brutal sometimes. The thing is, he does it without any ego or emotion. It's just how Paul sees it, stuck on the end of a sledge hammer handle and swung without malice. If you stick your head in it, Ouch. If you don't, than it's just curious.
Sorry Paul.

Joe K. Perez wrote:
I agree with the comments regarding Paul's performance as a volunteer critic. His presence is consistent and he is honest without being brutal, or superficial. Furthermore, he is not selective of the people he will critic. I appreciate that about him.

So true. Here's just a few examples of how helpful he's been on MM recently.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
And why does every black woman feel she needs a bootie shot?  Get rid of that one.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
You're pretty but I think that when your nipples point to the floor, it's best to keep your clothes on.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
One-dimensional lighting is better than no lighting.  Now let me go find three girls who will let me stick balls in their mouths.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
And if your "lighting" is a "style choice," why do you assume that mine isn't?

Go away.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
They must have taught you to say that in school.  Like "you don't know art when you see it!"

Since I have too much time on my hands today, how about pointing out which of your images is an example of a great existing light shot.  I went through your port a number of times and I must have missed it.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Has anyone noticed how many photographers choose really ugly backgrounds.  I won't mention any names but I saw a forum regular who did that not just once, but three times.  Geez.  One was the most horrible mottled baby blue you ever saw in your life.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Yeah, I need to get some models some tires to sit on.  In swimwear yet.  Definitely won't be boring, huh?

I agree with the others who shoot outdoors.  I just don't do that.  If models want to shoot outdoors there are plenty of photographers who will do that with them.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
I don't know what your problem is but let's talk quality for a minute.  You call this quality?

Nothing like putting the subject's head in the shadows.

All of your pics look like they were taken with, yep, K-Mart style flat lighting.  I never worked for K-Mart but you must have learned to light like that somewhere.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
As for the lighting, I'd say it's pretty damned good so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

"Bluntly, even though there are shadows, it looks to me like flat K-Mart lighting."

Huh?  I won't even ask you to explain that.  Flat lighting doesn't have shadows.  And why the snide reference to K-Mart?  K-Mart and others use two lights permanently mounted at 45 deg angles to each other.  That give you flat lighting.  No shadows at all, IOW.

And I just looked at your port and I only see a couple of images that have what I'd consider acceptable lighting.  The rest are flat - that means no shadows.  Yell if you want me to point them out to you.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
My lighting is pretty good though, and it's not just me saying that.  As for posing, well, I have a lot to learn in that area.  As for creativity, I think you're born with it.  But the issue here was "flat lighting," as seconded by Mr. Connery, not creativity or posing capability.  If flat lighting equals K-Mart lighting, then most of his work fills the bill.  In reality, I think he just jumped in here and took LowTek's side of the argument.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Well, that's good because if I wanted art lessons you'd be the last guy I'd come to.  If you think it takes creativity to put a vinyl dress on someone and then light her boobs instead of her face, we'll that's not art, that's just bad photography.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Your idea that my pictures look alike is silly.  The only common thread is that they're all taken in a studio.  No one looking at this page could have reached that conclusion.

http://www.paulsportraits.com/fashion/f … orites.htm

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Since when did you become the arbiter of good lighting?  You don't get properly placed shadows without also having dimensional lighting.  If you don't believe me, ask Monte.

As for your port, look at your first image - no shadows.  2nd image - eyes all the way to the left, leaning on her left arm.  7th image - no fill on her face.  8th image - Huh?  11th image - nose shadow is running over her lip. 13th image - you broad-lit her - eyes full right.  14th image - a K-Mart shot if there ever was one - where's the "demensionality" here?  17th image - flat lighting.

I think you should put all that knowledge you've accumulated into use.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Your only halfway decent picture is the one in the black tank top but geez, look at the background.  You also don't appear to have any makeup or lipstick on.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Others may disagree but I think they're too artsy-fartsy.  The image quality is good though.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
The first thing I'd do would be to get rid of the one of the fat couple kissing, the one of gramdma, the one of the two kids and the one of the dog, and one of the ones of the yellow shoes.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
You'll never get any pros with pics like those on your port.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
I don't do that great a job and rarely try to get into the photographer's head as to why he did something in a particular way.  I just point out things that I notice that go against traditional portraiture (cut off part of the left eye, etc).  And also items like failure to adust levels (so many folks do this).

I'm also guilty of being a smart-ass at times.  Some images are so bad (technically), I wonder why it got posted for critique in the first place.  Folks get to see a lot of great work on MM, it makes me wonder.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
You're not bad looking but I'd sure like to see the poster you did for Honda.  I'm sure one of the images wasn't the butt shot

Paul Ferrara wrote:
They aren't that great.  Finding another photographer might help you.  At the least tell him to not shoot in the dark.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
She's not a model, she's a stylist.  And you can bet you don't want me to critique your port.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
And  you also need to learn to distinguish good pics from bad ones.  You got Coelho so excited on the two shots in the white shirt that he forgot to compose and expose correctly.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
I don't mean to be harsh but you don't seem to be paying any attention at all to your lighting.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
None of your images show any modeling (shadows).  You don't light model pictures like you do a wedding.  Time to hit the books.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Like the one with the model's anus and vagina showing?

I've gotta tell you, after looking at your port, you've got no business mocking other photographers.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
In short, it sucks.  Please go take some model pictures.  If you don't know any models, get your wife to pose, your daughter, your wife's friend....

Paul Ferrara wrote:
You know, you don't even have a clue about how bad a photographer you really are.  Who cares if you shoot a thousand shots if most of them are over or under exposed.  Look at your port.  Here's a guy that can't even do a self-portrait and get the whites exposed correctly.  Geez!

Paul Ferrara wrote:

They're that bad.  I'm just going by the pics on your MM site.  Almost anyone could help you so don't take offense.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Not to be harsh, but you claim to be a professional photographer but I don't think any pro would post such a shot.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Next time state that you only want warm fuzzies.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
You must have a ton of time on your hands to go through all the messages and pull those out.  Nothing like seeing one side of a conversation.

Paul

Im on your side Paul....your honest, who cares if it is "regular" honosty, or "brutal" honosty...If you post in critique, you get critiqued...or as my grandpa used to say,
"If you ask a stupid question, you'll get a stupid answer."

Kevin Connery wrote:

Joe K. Perez wrote:
I agree with the comments regarding Paul's performance as a volunteer critic. His presence is consistent and he is honest without being brutal, or superficial. Furthermore, he is not selective of the people he will critic. I appreciate that about him.

So true. Here's just a few examples of how helpful he's been on MM recently.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
One-dimensional lighting is better than no lighting.  Now let me go find three girls who will let me stick balls in their mouths.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
And if your "lighting" is a "style choice," why do you assume that mine isn't?

Go away.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
They must have taught you to say that in school.  Like "you don't know art when you see it!"

Since I have too much time on my hands today, how about pointing out which of your images is an example of a great existing light shot.  I went through your port a number of times and I must have missed it.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Has anyone noticed how many photographers choose really ugly backgrounds.  I won't mention any names but I saw a forum regular who did that not just once, but three times.  Geez.  One was the most horrible mottled baby blue you ever saw in your life.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Yeah, I need to get some models some tires to sit on.  In swimwear yet.  Definitely won't be boring, huh?

I agree with the others who shoot outdoors.  I just don't do that.  If models want to shoot outdoors there are plenty of photographers who will do that with them.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
I don't know what your problem is but let's talk quality for a minute.  You call this quality?

Nothing like putting the subject's head in the shadows.

All of your pics look like they were taken with, yep, K-Mart style flat lighting.  I never worked for K-Mart but you must have learned to light like that somewhere.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
As for the lighting, I'd say it's pretty damned good so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

"Bluntly, even though there are shadows, it looks to me like flat K-Mart lighting."

Huh?  I won't even ask you to explain that.  Flat lighting doesn't have shadows.  And why the snide reference to K-Mart?  K-Mart and others use two lights permanently mounted at 45 deg angles to each other.  That give you flat lighting.  No shadows at all, IOW.

And I just looked at your port and I only see a couple of images that have what I'd consider acceptable lighting.  The rest are flat - that means no shadows.  Yell if you want me to point them out to you.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
My lighting is pretty good though, and it's not just me saying that.  As for posing, well, I have a lot to learn in that area.  As for creativity, I think you're born with it.  But the issue here was "flat lighting," as seconded by Mr. Connery, not creativity or posing capability.  If flat lighting equals K-Mart lighting, then most of his work fills the bill.  In reality, I think he just jumped in here and took LowTek's side of the argument.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Well, that's good because if I wanted art lessons you'd be the last guy I'd come to.  If you think it takes creativity to put a vinyl dress on someone and then light her boobs instead of her face, we'll that's not art, that's just bad photography.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Your idea that my pictures look alike is silly.  The only common thread is that they're all taken in a studio.  No one looking at this page could have reached that conclusion.

http://www.paulsportraits.com/fashion/f … orites.htm

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Since when did you become the arbiter of good lighting?  You don't get properly placed shadows without also having dimensional lighting.  If you don't believe me, ask Monte.

As for your port, look at your first image - no shadows.  2nd image - eyes all the way to the left, leaning on her left arm.  7th image - no fill on her face.  8th image - Huh?  11th image - nose shadow is running over her lip. 13th image - you broad-lit her - eyes full right.  14th image - a K-Mart shot if there ever was one - where's the "demensionality" here?  17th image - flat lighting.

I think you should put all that knowledge you've accumulated into use.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Your only halfway decent picture is the one in the black tank top but geez, look at the background.  You also don't appear to have any makeup or lipstick on.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Others may disagree but I think they're too artsy-fartsy.  The image quality is good though.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
The first thing I'd do would be to get rid of the one of the fat couple kissing, the one of gramdma, the one of the two kids and the one of the dog, and one of the ones of the yellow shoes.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
You'll never get any pros with pics like those on your port.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
I don't do that great a job and rarely try to get into the photographer's head as to why he did something in a particular way.  I just point out things that I notice that go against traditional portraiture (cut off part of the left eye, etc).  And also items like failure to adust levels (so many folks do this).

I'm also guilty of being a smart-ass at times.  Some images are so bad (technically), I wonder why it got posted for critique in the first place.  Folks get to see a lot of great work on MM, it makes me wonder.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
They aren't that great.  Finding another photographer might help you.  At the least tell him to not shoot in the dark.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
She's not a model, she's a stylist.  And you can bet you don't want me to critique your port.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
And  you also need to learn to distinguish good pics from bad ones.  You got Coelho so excited on the two shots in the white shirt that he forgot to compose and expose correctly.

"I think this is hilarious.....

Paul Ferrara wrote:
They must have taught you to say that in school.  Like "you don't know art when you see it!"

Since I have too much time on my hands today, how about pointing out which of your images is an example of a great existing light shot.  I went through your port a number of times and I must have missed it.

ooooohhh, he was talking to me on that one...HAH!

AlbrightCreativeImagery wrote:
LOL
I don't know if that is funny, of frightening!?
Paul, you've become a star!

I don't know about that, but Kevin is obviously a very bitter person.  He envisions himself as some sort of lighting guru but I still see pics on his port that need work in that area.  I thought of posting a couple here but decided not to highjack your thread.

And Envisage, thanks!

Paul

Paul Ferrara wrote:
You must have a ton of time on your hands to go through all the messages and pull those out.

Software. Computers are good at this kind of boring stuff.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
I don't know about that, but Kevin is obviously a very bitter person.  He envisions himself as some sort of lighting guru but I still see pics on his port that need work in that area.  I thought of posting a couple here but decided not to highjack your thread.

Oh, please do; I value your opinons so highly. Feel free to start a new thread, even, if you feel it would help anyone.

I am NOT a lighting guru; I simply study it and try to get better. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. Same for posing, propping, and set arrangements. I've found that to be more effective than sticking with a highly rigid and inflexible formula, even with the occasional utter failure.

On the other hand, I do try to identify the goal of a photograph before assigning a label to it and reviewing it as if it were something it's not. Given that the same techniques and/or results that work for one genre may not be appropriate for others--great portraits can be horrible advertisements, and great ads can be horrible portraits. (Replace "portrait" and "ad" with glamour, fashion, commercial, lifestyle, etc. as desired.) Reviewing images without that will usually give misleading results, even if the review is otherwise accurate.

As for 'bitter', I don't know--I've never tasted myself. I'll have to take your word for it.

commart wrote:
One item not yet brought up on this thread is the effect of judgment itself on an artist's growth.  There's no shortage of either educational or instructional materials for ambitious photographers wandering through every walk of the art, but the vision thing -- what someone is or wants to be about -- definitely collides with workshop cultures, with discussions frequently and merely evolving over matters of taste.  What I wonder is where the force of comment may be best applied in regards to being genuinely helpful to the person submitting the art.

Some things could be reduced to tropes:

--For the less ambitious or naive: "Expect more from yourself, your partners, and from you efforts overall";

--For the less technically inclined or adept, myself among them: "For pete's sake, get a handle on your tool set!" 

--For those disinclined to produce a significant body of work: "The ability to produce a great photograph signals the true start of your journey."

The volume should be right up there with one of Hedgecoe's: Obi Wan's Guide to Great Photography.

Get beyond "make an effort, please; improve the quality of your show; and think about what you're doing to, for, and with other people," and you arrive at the personality "producing" modeling or photography (or music or CGI or any of a thousand creative-expressive, composition-oriented arts).  What do you say to Helmut: "I like the babes with the clothes on and off, but there's something about that bleached blonde, maybe she just looks it, that bothers me."  WeeGee: "Do something about that hard flash, would you please?"  Oliver Stone: "You spend too much time working on the look of the film itself--you need to pay more attention to writing an honest script." 

Does work here?

Critics, teachers, partners, and patrons offer four very different approaches to providing comment, none of which necessarily changes the character or nature of the artist.  Perhaps the best criticism can do is help bring out that character -- that's a hand-holding, mentoring, or teaching orientation: after that, I wonder if much of it doesn't just distract the artist or get in the artist's way.

A wonderful point put to us very eloquently.

I believe that with photography, as with any other art, you reach a point where dialog with peers becomes instrumental in your growth. Ansel Adams and Edward Weston had Group f/64. Robert Capa and Henri Cartier-Bresson had/founded Magnum. I'm not suggesting that MM is in the same category as Group f/64 or Magnum, but for those of us isolated from the major happenings on the coasts this is one of the few "communities" were we can attempt to exchange ideas and grow. Critiques are one way to get some focused dialog going, but the diverse nature of this community does make it challenging to manage.

I just point out things that I notice that go against traditional portraiture

Perfect example of my point.  How many people do you think on this site are portrait photographers?  It's true that there are several things in portraiture that apply elsewhere, but unless you're a professional in the are they're trying to get into, you simply aren't qualified to critique them in my opinion.

Sorry to pick on you Paul, it's a general issue that comes up a lot, you just happened to be the nearest and closest person available to quote since it was in the thread.  I'm not saying your critiques are bad, or you're bad, but if someone wants to get into say, fashion photography and listen to your critiques it's quite possible you'd be telling them things that aren't true, and many people do it.

Andy

A. H A M I L T O N (in his linked message) wrote:
Some of the things that need to be answered before ANYONE can give you a critique:

1) What style are you going for?
2) What are your goals?
3) Who are your prospective clients?
4) Will your market support that?
5) Do you plan to relocate if your market doesn't?

Absolutely.

commart wrote:
Get beyond "make an effort, please; improve the quality of your show; and think about what you're doing to, for, and with other people," and you arrive at the personality "producing" modeling or photography (or music or CGI or any of a thousand creative-expressive, composition-oriented arts).  What do you say to Helmut: "I like the babes with the clothes on and off, but there's something about that bleached blonde, maybe she just looks it, that bothers me."  WeeGee: "Do something about that hard flash, would you please?"  Oliver Stone: "You spend too much time working on the look of the film itself--you need to pay more attention to writing an honest script."

I skipped the excellent philosophical advice--which was very well done--because this block gives concrete examples of what happens when well-meaning advice is provided which ignores the items Andy notes. Even if the comments come from an expert in the field, with a beautiful portfolio, if they've got a different 'vision', some mismatches are almost automatic. And that goes down to the technical as well: I've seen stunning fashion spreads shot to look as though they were taken with point-and-shoot cameras with on-camera flash.

It's much worse if the comments come from someone without expertise or vision, or from outside that genre; they're almost always going to be "incorrect", unless those items--and many others--are taken into account. A critique of a fashion photograph from a strictly portrait perspective, for example, is rarely going to contain any useful information, unless context is considered.

Critiquing at the novice level is much easier, as applying the small set of "rules" each genre typically uses to help practitioners ramp up to where they can exercise their vision are often beneficial. Applying those rules blindly  outside a small sub-genre, or to advanced photographers--even inside that same sub-genre--however, demonstrates a lack of understanding--and misleads others who read them.

Knowing when a critique is invalid (rather than just bad, stupid, or useless) usually requires a consciousness of your own vision, which isn't the norm for most photographers: it's typically highly internalized. (Often the artist is the last one to recognize their 'style'.)

Kevin Connery wrote:

Knowing when a critique is invalid (rather than just bad, stupid, or useless) usually requires a consciousness of your own vision, which isn't the norm for most photographers: it's typically highly internalized. (Often the artist is the last one to recognize their 'style'.)

I do agree with this point 100%, but I also think you have to be able to filter out the valueable bits of information from any input that you get.  For example, a traditional portrait photographer may make some interesting comments about lighting that could be valuable even if I don't apply them exactly as described. I don't know how a student of photography learns to filter the input they receive, but it is an essential skill because viewers of photography will offer unsolicited opinions regardless of their knowledge level.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Keep in mind it's all opinion.  And the person being critiqued can always look at the critiquers images when deciding whether to pay attention or not.

Paul

So true.

David Nusbaum wrote:

I do agree with this point 100%, but I also think you have to be able to filter out the valueable bits of information from any input that you get.  For example, a traditional portrait photographer may make some interesting comments about lighting that could be valuable even if I don't apply them exactly as described. I don't know how a student of photography learns to filter the input they receive, but it is an essential skill because viewers of photography will offer unsolicited opinions regardless of their knowledge level.

My main issue with critique is that you can't offer back why you did what you did without sounding defensive and - already said in this thread - people inherantly feel that because they offered their critique and their opinion that you should be happy they did that and that they're entitled to their cc and their opinion and god forbid you try to explain yourself....then you're too defensive and can't take a criticism....so, it always seems to me that people like to dish it out but don't want to take any slack back for it....

and, honestly? those people who comment with a 'witty' reply (and there are some on every site) ??  they always sound mean to me - and mean people are generally petty and insecure.

just some thoughts...

Julia Gerace wrote:

My main issue with critique is that you can't offer back why you did what you did without sounding defensive and - already said in this thread - people inherantly feel that because they offered their critique and their opinion that you should be happy they did that and that they're entitled to their cc and their opinion and god forbid you try to explain yourself....then you're too defensive and can't take a criticism....so, it always seems to me that people like to dish it out but don't want to take any slack back for it....

and, honestly? those people who comment with a 'witty' reply (and there are some on every site) ??  they always sound mean to me - and mean people are generally petty and insecure.

just some thoughts...

This is a valid and difficult issue. From an idealistic point of view I would say that an artist's work has to stand on it own. If the artist needs to be with the art to explain it then I would think there is a problem. Of course there are exceptions, the viewer may have taken the work out of context or the artist may want to ask why something didn't work. You are right though, it always appears that the artist is defending their work and that always seems to hurt the artist more than the provider of the critique. My recommendation, based on painful experience, establish the context of your work, explain the intent, and if there are certain aspects that may come into question, point them out when you request the critique... for example, state that you let the shadows go dark to create a darker mood. Then once the work is our for critique don't debate it further. In most cases the debaute won't change the viewers opinion and the artist end up looking defensive.

Just my opinion..

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Keep in mind it's all opinion.  And the person being critiqued can always look at the critiquers images when deciding whether to pay attention or not.

Paul

yeah and they can dialogue back.

let's say I hold up one of my works and someone says..."Kim that ain't traditional portraiture," I'd say, "duh."  And then we go from there...

that's why I think of a critique as a communciation process not a pronoucement or simple conclusion unless of course the work just sucks.

Paul Ferrara wrote:
You must have a ton of time on your hands to go through all the messages and pull those out.  Nothing like seeing one side of a conversation.

Paul

I thought that was really funny!!

(:------

Hj

KM von Seidl wrote:

yeah and they can dialogue back.

let's say I hold up one of my works and someone says..."Kim that ain't traditional portraiture," I'd say, "duh."  And then we go from there...

that's why I think of a critique as a communciation process not a pronoucement or simple conclusion unless of course the work just sucks.

I agree with that.... this isn't a print competition where you're not allowed discussion...

Julia Gerace wrote:
agreed... 

one other thing is that sometimes I think that critiquers don't take a minute to think about 2 things - 1. the level of the photographer creating the images (because, seriously, if a beginner underexposes it's usually by accident, if a pro underexposes it's usually intentional 2. what the goal of the shot was in the first place - was it working on lighting? if so, what kind? was it working on posing? was it showcasing a product and not the model?     

nothing bothers me more than when you're working on butterfly lighting and someone says the light is too flat or you're working on rembrandt lighting and someone says it's too shadowy....it takes just as much effort to understand/critique what you're seeing as it does to create the image.....

Julia

I agree Julia. I believe this is because many people critique without the photographer's connotation AND some critiquers are just giving their feelings and not bringing fundimental photographic principles.

M

Paul Ferrara wrote:
Keep in mind it's all opinion.  And the person being critiqued can always look at the critiquers images when deciding whether to pay attention or not.

Paul

I agree, my point was that the problem is sometimes those receiving don't know any better...and it should be the responsibility of more experienced photograhers who are giving critiques to point that out...Unfortunately, hardly anyone does.  Thus, guaranteed there are photographers taking what is, for the industry they're interested in, bad advice and setting them back.

It's happened to me, hell, even from another fashion photographer...it was over something as little as stylistic preferences in LA vs Dallas.  If things can be that subtle from here to there, imagine how bad they can be from totally differen disciplines.

Andy