Verbal vs Visual Critiques

Discussions
1

This was a discussion started on a critique that I moved over to discussions

@Igor_Doncov , I agree with this completely. This is one of the reasons I’ve kept images downloadable by members, so people can make quick edits when a visual example communicates the idea more clearly than words alone.

I do think this can make critiques stronger and lead to more engaged discussions. There are definitely times when a suggested change in color, tone, contrast, or overall mood is difficult to communicate clearly with words, but much easier to understand when someone can actually see the direction being suggested.

Did you have a specific idea in mind for improving this process, or are you mainly suggesting that we encourage members to use visual examples more often when it would help?

Yosemite Falls With revision
2

Yes! Visual suggestions make excellent sense, especially if they can be explained verbally.

1 Like
3

I am OK with this as long as the revised image is not a radical departure from the original image thus creating a derivative work.

I speak with experience here because such a thing was done to one of my images recently, and I was extremely unhappy about it.
-P

1 Like
4

I thought that there would be an encouragement rather than a requirement to show the modifications. After all the poster may not have access to photoshop during the post. Even though there is a way to currently upload a suggestion I thought that a prompt would be provided to show the modifications and a button to upload. Just see where this goes or if it changes anything. I think if it became a requirement then posts may drop off. But I think it’s one way from separating NPN from other sites that do strictly verbal critiques. In fact I would advertise NPN as a site with visual criticism, an extra dimension to the process.

Another possibility is to create a category where the user specifically requests visual critiques rather than verbal. Or perhaps not a new category but a toggle for visual vs verbal vs either critique. I suppose users can currently do that in writing but nobody ever thinks to do so.

5

I haven’t been around much lately, so maybe I missed something, but didn’t this use to be the norm? I’ve always appreciated a visual critique, whether I agreed with it or not. Sometimes you get a radical re-do suggestion, but those can just be ignored.

6

I agree for the most part and clearly, providing visual evidence of one’s suggestions can and should be helpful. I also agree with Igor that “encouragement” is the way to go and not a requirement; there are just too many variables and expectations to standardize this. Preston’s comment is a prime example - The OP (original poster) may not appreciate derivativesof the post, but may appreciate processing and finer tweaks and suggestions.

It also 100% depends on what the OP is requesting. It’s one thing to say, “All comments and suggestions are welcome.” Taken literally, I don’t think the OP would be offended by a major edit, after-all they opened themselves up for it. This is typically my comment. However, at the other end, what if the OP makes a specific request: “My goal here was to achieve a high-key, mystical and ethereal effect.” Then, in this case anyone responding if they have suggestions should really be to help the OP get to that goal, give or take things like minor crops, dodging/burning, etc.

Lastly, IMHO, if one is posting and the include the “Abstract” category, I thin by definition, everything is fair game. Like the recent images posted of the rock wall on the way to Yosemite. I’ve posted often and there are quite literally endless possibilities. If someone sees a crop, a flip or rotation or wild color shift, and it signifcantly alters the original, well, it’s abstract, so maybe there are other possibilities within a given frame.

Ultimately its up to the person posting an image for critique to be very clear what feedback they are looking for.

In general, if you are providing feedback and you have the green light, then by all means providing a visual example of your suggestions I think is helpful. And if there are multiple steps or complicated edits, and the OP is looking for it, then even a screenshot of the processing stack might be helpful - as many folks already do.

Good topic

7

Excellent topic and if I have time while critiquing I will almost always do a revised edit with my suggestions. I think it’s extremely helpful to the poster to have a visual reference to what the commenter has suggested. There are some people who may not want you to tamper with their work so you might have a tab that posters can select that gives permission to have their images edited the way they see fit. I always feel a little bit weird editing someone’s image and invariably say that this edit may not have been the intention you were seeking when taking this image and if that’s the case to just go ahead and round file the edit. I always have a caveat. So, for me, having a selectable tab that tells the commentor that it’s ok to edit their image would be a great idea.
You could also explain or screen shot (or some combination of both) everything that was done to the image which would make things easier for the poster to implement those changes into their work if the like the desired outcome.

8

Honestly, and forgive me if this sounds somewhat harsh, but I do not believe we need ’ a category’ or a ‘toggle’ for visual or verbal critique. Nor do I believe we need a tab that gives/denies permission to edit an image. This would needlessly add more complexity.

Please understand that I mean no disrespect to those presenting these ideas, but I believe it should be left up to the commentor as to how they respond to an image with their critique, whether visual, verbal, or in combination.

Consider that if an OP requests a visual only critique, those who do not feel comfortable editing the work will be left out in the cold, and the image may not get the attention it deserves. We need to be careful here.

If a member truly does not want their image to be edited or manipulated, then they have a right to say so when they post their image. The OP would then need to rely on verbal comments only and then implement them as they see fit.
-P

9

These visual critiques are about providing greater accuracy and not about file download permissions. That bridge has already been crossed. Why reintroduce it again.

I do feel that there needs to be some flexibility in implementing the suggestions for the following reasons. These are just some I can think of.

  1. The poster may simply want to praise the image and has no recommendations to make.
  2. The poster may not have access to tools to provide a visual critique.
  3. The poster may not have confidence in their photoshop skills and would feel uncomfortable showing their work.
  4. The poster simply does not have time or the desire to put in the effort to do the work needed for a visual critique.

So I think it’s important to encourage visual feedback but be flexible in how to implement it.

Once again. The reason this has been suggested is because from my personal experience the author virtually never edits his work in the way I envision the suggestion I make. And I’m always left with the question - did the author not understand my intention or have they understood it and are using the information in their own way.

10

I feel the need to respond to some of the comments.

  1. Visual critiques are already being done and is an option for all to use if they feel it is appropriate.
  2. Let’s not add another layer of complexity to the process of commenting and posting images.
  3. I don’t think we need to “encourage” visual feedback and see no reason to add some feature to “implement” it.
  4. Personally, I have been more inclined to re-post an image based on verbal suggestions. If someone posts a visual suggestion, then as far as I’m concerned it’s already been done, and while I might implement those suggestions for my personal files, I don’t see the utility in a re-post.
  5. While I might make a suggestion that I feel could improve an image, I have always felt it was a bit presumptuous on my part to actually rework another’s image. I’ve left that for the moderators or those with clearly more skills than I have. I think this might be the case for others as well, so again, let’s not add more complexity to NPN.
1 Like
11

Hi all,

This has been a good discussion, though I think it has gone in a few different directions and there may be some confusion around how the original idea was worded. I wanted to step in and clarify my thoughts.

Visual critiques have been part of NPN for a long time, so I don’t think the question is whether they should be allowed. They already are. My understanding is that Igor was suggesting they could be made a little more visible and encouraged when they are useful, especially in cases where words alone don’t fully convey an idea.

That said, I don’t think we need to overthink this or add unnecessary complexity. I agree that a checkbox, toggle, or separate visual critique category probably isn’t needed. Members should still feel free to respond in whatever way is most comfortable and helpful, whether that’s a written critique, a visual example, or some combination of the two. And of course, if someone doesn’t want their image reworked as part of a critique, they can simply say so in their post.

What this discussion has sparked for me, though, is an idea about improving the critique process itself. Rather than leaving every critique as a completely blank slate, there may be a way to offer a more guided critique response option. This could help members structure their feedback more thoughtfully and, when appropriate, encourage them to include a reworked image as a visual example, along with an explanation of what they changed and why.

The important part is that this would be optional. Members could still reply normally, just as they do now. The goal wouldn’t be to force visual critiques or make the process more rigid, but to make it easier for people to give clear, useful, thoughtful feedback in whatever form best serves the image.

I need to think this through more, and I have a few other projects to finish first, but I do think there’s potential here. Done well, this could help NPN continue moving beyond a standard forum model and become an even stronger platform for meaningful critique.

12

Thanks for clarifying, David, and for always thinking about how to keep critique alive on this site.

I can’t remember when I first joined—maybe around 2008 or so? It was before David was managing it. I remember that transition.

Back then, members would sometimes include the statement,“Please do not download and edit my images.” We also used to have a gallery forum, which was no critique, just presenting work. As noted when we abandoned the gallery, there are plenty of places to showcase one’s photography, and this is not that. Critique is what we’re all here for, but also community, and perhaps the latter is more important for some of us.

I think it’s a good idea to encourage those who find visual critique presumptuous to simply add “Please don’t edit my images” to their signature when they share an image. If I know they are uncomfortable with visual critique, I can just be descriptive.

I have stepped on some toes recently by assuming visual critique is always welcome. I had a good direct message conversation with the person after this thread popped up. I have a better understanding that not everyone is comfortable with visual critique. Last winter I called cropping screenshots of folks’ work both “my super-power and my toxic trait,” but I thought I was being funny by calling it a toxic trait. Now, I’ll look more carefully at what folks ask for and not go beyond that. It’s hard. I like playing with images. I just need to shoot more of my own​:sweat_smile:.

Here’s the thing: It’s okay if we all have different feelings about our work being altered. For me, even if I think an image is as good as I can make it, I share it here to make it and me better, and letting someone else flip, rotate, take into PS and do wizardry is okay. Seeing their results motivates me. I just want to learn. That’s what I’m here for. Of course, others are more advanced and don’t need the lessons I need to see images differently. We can specify what we do and do not want.

Any-hooo, I’m not sure any site changes are necessary, David. Just clarifying our own boundaries when we post is always good.

Thanks for this thoughtful discussion everyone.

ML

New Feature: Share Revised Versions in Image Critiques
13

Seems to me that by participating here it is a given that another person can download and fiddle with your photo to their heart’s content. Whether you like the result or not isn’t part of that equation and frankly it shouldn’t be. It’s implicit in the submission. The thing for me is laziness - most of the time I just don’t want to bother to do an edit on someone else’s photo when editing my own is hard enough. At least in my present mindset. That’s why when someone else has a go, it’s extra special since giving that time is generous and kind. Framing it that way might help soften the blow if the results aren’t to your liking. Someone did bother to pay attention and devote creative energy to your shot, and that’s nice.

But this whole discussion feels like a ‘here we go again’ moment about critique. It’s been tweaked within an inch of its life and so far as I can tell, hasn’t really resulted in anything new or changed people’s behavior. Do we really want to put energy into this, or should we take that and plow it back into meaningful critique instead? That’s how it feels to me.

1 Like
14

Thanks, Marylynne and Kristen. I think both of you are getting at something important here.

I don’t know the specifics of the situation Marylynne mentioned, so I don’t want to assume how that unfolded. But in general, if someone posts an image with an open-ended request, or says they are open to any and all feedback, then I think they should expect a wide range of responses. That may include written suggestions, crop ideas, processing suggestions, or a reworked example.

This is also part of what we talk about in The Art of Image Critique:

When you share an image for critique, you’re inviting feedback from a range of perspectives.
Be open to all comments, both positive and critical, and receive them with appreciation.

That doesn’t mean every critique will align with the photographer’s intent, but that is part of the process. The person posting also has some responsibility to be clear about what they want. If they want feedback on a specific mood, composition concern, processing choice, or technical issue, they should say that. And if they do not want their image downloaded and reworked, that is perfectly reasonable to state as well.

I agree that we don’t need to make this more complicated than it needs to be. I’m not interested in adding friction, rules, or unnecessary checkboxes. But I also don’t want us to stop looking for better ways to support critique just because some past attempts didn’t work as well as we hoped.

We’ve tried a lot of different things on NPN over the years. Some have helped, some haven’t. That’s part of running a community like this. I’m always going to be open to thoughtful ways to improve the critique process, as long as those changes support the conversation rather than getting in the way of it.

So I don’t see this as a major policy shift. More than anything, this feels like a useful reminder that visual critiques are allowed, that they can be incredibly helpful when offered thoughtfully, and that the person posting has a role in guiding the kind of feedback they hope to receive.

15

I remain convinced that in this medium a visual critique is the best, most accurate, and most helpful way to critique an image. Despite the pushback on this nobody has really refuted that statement. Now, whether members want to do it or not is another matter. Change is difficult. I remember how I resisted the difference from NPN 1.0 to 2.0. In fact, some members left because of their discomfort.

When I was a kid and asked to do something I didn’t like the retort would be ‘it’s a free country’. And members should be free to comment as they like. People come to this site for different reasons, different commitments, different desires, and different skill levels. The site definitely is more interesting when there are more comments and more interesting comments. I think that’s hard to refute as well. But achieving that richness has not been straightforward. Many things were tried and many have failed. Template usage has failed. Nobody looks at a list of suggestions on how to improve a critique. Asking members to add 2 comments for every post has routinely been ignored over the years. Forcing a comment to be at least 20 characters long is another such attempt.

Ultimately I’m beginning to think the answer is emulation. The snowball effect. The more quality critiques that appear the more they encourage others to do the same. And you can’t rush that. Having said that I really like the new changes made for image submission. That’s about the best way I’ve yet seen of presenting all the tools necessary for a good critique in a non intrusive manner.