• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / PhotoLucida 2009: dealing with criticism

PhotoLucida 2009: dealing with criticism

April 28, 2009 JimK Leave a Comment

I drove back from Portland yesterday. On the way down I had time to think about how to get the most out of critical comments.

In my reports on the reviewing process, I made the point several times that there was little consistency in the reviewers’ comments. At the time, I saw that as a problem: how do I know what advice to take seriously when the advice is contradictory? In thinking about how to deal with criticism in general, I now see that, given a critical statement, my reaction should be the same whether or not I’ve previously heard something contradictory. The lack of reviewer consistency is therefore not a problem at all, it’s just a fact.

During the long drive, I worked out the following method for dealing with criticism. First, imagine a world in which the criticism is 100% accurate, and you must change your work in reaction to it. What would you do differently? Can you visualize the result? If not, are there some experiments you can do to see what would happen if you took the criticism to heart?

Once you can see the results of having complete faith in a critical comment, decide if that’s an improvement. But shift gears before you make up your mind; don’t judge the success or failure of your reaction to the criticism by whether or not the change removes the reason for the criticism. If reacting to the criticism makes your work stronger by your standards, not anyone else’s, the criticism has helped you grow. If the changes you’ve made don’t please you, and you don’t see a path to ones that might, forget the criticism and move on.

Sounds like a plan, but is it a good plan? I’m going to try out this technique, taking what I heard at PhotoLucida and working with it over the next few months. I’ll let you know how it turns out.

By the way, I’ve thought of a way in which two completely contradictory criticisms can both be right. I’ll illustrate it by an analogy. Suppose you’re climbing a mountain, and your objective is to get as high as you can. It’s foggy, so you can’t see the whole mountain. You head north until the terrain flattens out and then starts to trend downward. Then you encounter two people. You ask the first, “Which way do I go to gain altitude?” She says, “Go east.” You ask the other person the same question. He says, “Go west.” You’re scratching your head and trying to figure out which one is telling you the truth when the fog lifts and you see that you’re standing on a saddle between two peaks.

The Last Word

← PhotoLucida 2009: what not to expect from reviewers PhotoLucida 2009: where’s the power? →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.