Ernest Y. Koe

Smalls things loosely joined.

On Constructive Criticism

Reposting a letter (edited) to my local Jacksonville Photography Meetup Group on the matter of asking for “constructive criticism” of one’s photos.

Some of my thoughts on it can be generalized to life, work and everything else.

***

On “Constructive Criticism”

This is meant as “constructive criticism.”

The phrase seems to be trending on this as well as other photography groups.

I dislike it, and respectfully suggest that we try to transcend its trappings.

Let me explain.

I fully appreciate everyone’s sensitivity to criticism. Getting criticism that is constructive should go without saying. That members of this group and particularly new members feel like we need to make it explicit is a symptom of bigger problems that cannot be solved by invoking that phrase repeatedly.

Giving Criticism
First, if you can’t critique without attacking people personally here, don’t bother. And if you find that sort of style of dialog interesting, feel free to take it to many likeminded groups such as flickr’s Delete Me Uncensored (DMU). This is not a value judgement, you’ll find me there shredding your “crap” as readily as the next “asshat” in the name of fun.

But that is not the norm here at JPMG.

It is not that we need to be milquetoast and tiptoe around everyone’s personal feelings, it is simply that we should respect each other’s maturity, self-confidence and assume that we are deserving of each other’s honest and best good-faith efforts in the interest of advancing our collective art.

Taking Criticism
Second, as the recipient of criticism, no one should feel vulnerable here. You shouldn’t need to ask people to be constructive as if that is the exception instead of the norm. Expect it. Demand it. You’ve earned that right by showing up.

But, you also have a responsibility to suspend your natural sensitivities and to be open minded about what is being offered.

Here’s the thing, criticism is what you make of it.

True, some are more useful than others, but you can choose how you feel about any of them. You are in control. Don’t put the responsibility of feeling emotionally safe in other people’s hands. Yes, expect professional courtesy, it makes the world a better place. But you don’t have to agree; you don’t even have to like it.

If, however, you only want criticism you like to hear, your ego is in the way of real growth. And, that would be the real tragedy.

The goal isn’t to protect our own feelings. The goal is to elevate our art.

When I see photographers asking for “constructive criticism,” my instinct is to be suspicious about their willingness to really engage the conversation; I wonder about their self-esteem and question if I should really invest any time. If you are a pro, you have no reason to be self-conscious.  It demeans the process; it is like saying, “give me feedback but please know that I may take issue with the way you are giving it.” Just ask for feedback, take the good, leave the bad, don’t sweat the chumps. If you are new to this group, know that you will always get my best, and most constructive feedback. It just goes without saying.

Humbly yours,

Ernest Koe

Tiger Dad #fail?

Yesterday morning was particularly tough.

It started fine, if a bit early, at 6:00 AM. I heard Beckett clamber out of bed, both feet hitting the floor with a convincing thud and up to full speed without missing a beat.

We fell into the usual weekend routine, a little episode of “Elmo,” and a little lazy lounging on the couch.

Then, it started.

Kick.

“Beckett, please don’t kick daddy’s computer,” I said in my best I-really-mean-business voice.

Kick, kick.

“Beckett, I asked you not to kick the computer,” I said askance, “why did you kick it?”

Kick! kick!, kick! as he fixed his gaze on me.

“Beckett, I mean it….”

KICK!

If it was intended to get a rise out of me, it succeeded. Exasperated, I pulled out the “nuclear” option, “Go to the corner, Beckett, you are getting a time out!”

And nuclear it went.

All semblance of order shattered as Beckett disintegrated into one of his unholy tantrums. I picked him up kicking and screaming, determined to force the issue and hold my ground as a little voice in my head chided me, You can’t let him run all over you.

This went on for half an hour. He would escalate, I would withdraw. He would escalate some more, scream louder, cry harder, stomp his feet more pitifully, run to me wailing a jumbled mix of ‘NOooo’s and ‘DadDaddyaHoldDaddyHolMe’s,  and through it all, I would grit my teeth and ignore him even more.

Ignore him, don’t reinforce bad behavior, don’t coddle him! Is this what I am supposed to do?

Predictably, it ended in one of the usual patterns. This time C intervened and managed to coax him off the cliff. As his sobs quieted down to a whimper, we hugged, and I tried to explain why daddy got mad.

I don’t suppose I expected him to back down. If it were me, I wouldn’t have. I asked him if he understood what I was trying to tell him, “Yesh,” he replied reflexively, but it felt like that was what he thought I wanted to hear, and the whole thing felt sadly pointless.

I have been turning over this episode in the last 24 hours or so, trying to unpack this complicated mix of emotions about the whole experience. Perhaps, it feels wrong because it was a conscious disciplinary effort, and I am stepping far outside my natural comfort zone. Quite possibly, I am just not that “tough” of a parent, and this feels like an act because it is one.

The thing is, I am not sure I what I’ve accomplished by channeling my inner Tiger Dad. Specifically, I am having deep misgivings about what I thought I was supposed to be doing. If pressed, I might say I was acting to correct a “bad behavior,” and I think I am supposed to correct bad behaviors.

What exactly is bad behavior?

It seems to me that all this assumes that our underlying model about children’s behavior and how to nurture them is right in the first place; that there is a conscious moral component behind children’s behavior (bad vs. good), and our efforts to control them is a good thing in the long run.

I am not so sure. I don’t have all of this worked out, but I think the some of my anxieties about the Tiger Dad approach comes down to the following things:

  • It feels coercive and manipulative — that somehow “love” has a price and our relationship is conditional or transactional. “If I don’t do X, Daddy won’t give me Y.” Mostly, I worry that the only “Y” in this equation he cares about is “love.”
  • I worry that I am teaching him to modulate his behavior on the basis of external considerations first when what really matters, I think, is not that he behaves properly in a performative sense, but that he does so because he is intrinsically motivated.
  • That I am missing some greater, more constructive, more transformative way to teach him about himself and the world.

One slightly tangential thought: are Tiger Bosses considered good leaders or motivators? I haven’t come across any leadership management literature or research that suggests so. Maybe, Steve Jobs is the exception, or maybe he is just badly understood. But it seems to me that we don’t motivate highly effective teams this way; why would we do so with two year olds?

Woolly Beasts Outcomes

In the New York Times yesterday,

“Schools are embracing digital learning, but evidence is scarce that the expensive technology is improving educational outcomes.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schools-faces-questions-on-value.html

In the Cave People Times 5000 years ago (biblical years) yesterday,

“Cave folk are embracing new stone tablet writing technology, but evidence is scarce that the expensive technology is improving woolly beasts  hunting outcomes.”

Practical Life Skills For Software Geeks

When folding laundry, optimize for stacking. In general, thinner and flatter is better than not.

Cook with patterns, not recipes. Recipes are just lines of code. Recognize the underlying structure, chunk them into patterns and you can cook anything.

Attention Deficit Disorder? Don’t beat yourself up. If you don’t have it, you don’t belong to the tribe. And, it is not a “disorder”, just badly understood.

Take your shoes off at home. It is a form of error-trapping. You can’t always see the poop you’ve stepped on, and you spend less time cleaning your house.

Wash your hands before touching other people’s babies. Babies are not GPL.

If you don’t speak a second human language, don’t put it on your resumé. Programming languages do not count.

Don’t fax.

If you don’t have anything nice to say about someone on facebook/Twitter/{INTERWEB_PLACE}; cat > /dev/null

The cash you see in your bank account is not the cash you have to spend. Factor in system latency.

He Who Sleeps Through Hurricanes

Declan arrived on August 30, 2011, a week or so late and looking utterly unhappy about being conscripted into the ranks of Earthlings.

They say your second child is easier. Maybe it is. It definitely seems scarier. I really wonder if we, as a species, are cut-out to really do justice to this business of raising children.

I reflect on the world into which he has been rudely inserted and find myself anxious about the mess he is nearly destined to inherit.

We have the government we deserve.

When the problem of our future is framed viscerally by the newborn before your eyes, it all seems obvious.

Is it so difficult to imagine a world where “We” is a not a dirty word?

I Can’t Tape It Anymore

[62] Can’t Tape It Anymore, originally uploaded by ernestkoe.

It’s fun now because it is not a job.

Oriental

Dames Point, originally uploaded by ernestkoe.

As a Nikon owner and Leica wishful-owner, I read Ken Rockwell’s blog to stay up on the world of cameras through Ken’s eyes. Mostly, it is just entertaining; his humor is an odd blend of self-conscious awkwardness and sometimes sardonic charm.

Beyond the technical reviews it is hard to take Ken too seriously. His blog is really one big chuckle. The man who rants against photographers’ preoccupation with “gear” is himself hopelessly seduced by the five-figure Leica M9 kit. Good for him, I say.

My issue with Ken, however, is not this predilection for hyperbolic sarcasm that he confuses for humor. My (little) beef is that he is sometimes careless with history and language.

In particular, he is fond of the word “Oriental,” http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/oriental.htm.

Now, this isn’t generally considered offensive by everyone in this world and I wouldn’t take umbrage with his usage except that he uses it in exactly the way that suggests a fundamental and deep ignorance of what he is saying. He writes:

“The Orient includes countries and regions like Japan, China, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan.”

Um, actually, The Orient, as it has traditionally been used, is a conflation of everything non-European. It isn’t just countries or regions “like” Japan, China, and Korea as if it would be justified if we could surgically limit the definition to those places to begin with. And what do you mean regions LIKE these? Is Thailand LIKE Japan or China? Is Malaysia like Korea?

“Since much Oriental photo gear now comes from several Oriental countries, it’s far more precise to say Oriental rather than trying to delineate Japanese or Chinese.”

So, there is nothing precise at all about this; but this is a straw man argument anyway. It may be far more convenient for Ken but it is definitely much less precise. We don’t need to invent words to say things like “The Nikon D40 is made in Thailand.”

It is one thing if you use “Oriental” in the same way we use the term “Western”, sloppy as it may be. We can just chalk that up to ignorance which is forgivable. But it is another thing to claim real understanding and be wrong about it. Categorically redefining the Oriental to mean “East Asian” (a very nice unloaded term) is a neat trick to get around the criticisms, but why not just use “East Asian.”

To be clear, my issue with him about the word “Oriental” lies LESS with the use of the term itself than with the explanation he provides which strikes me as utterly illogical.

Skins

2010/365.2 Skins, originally uploaded by ernestkoe.

Did you know that to promote Aperture keywords to the top level you have to drag them down into the empty space at the end of your keywords list in the Keyword HUD panel?

Seems backwards, I know.

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC Review



Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC Review, originally uploaded by ernestkoe.

For a technical review of this lens, I’d encourage you to check out the numerous postings found by googling for "Tamron 17-50mm VC".

Here’s a not-so-technical one I liked, lemon.soju.co.uk/tamron-f2-8-vc/
and a more technical one: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-…

I returned the Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 SP XR Di II VC which I initially purchased from my local Ritz store.

One of the nice things about buying things from Ritz is that returns are relatively painless. Although I don’t make a habit of doing so, I much rather return stuff in person than by any RMA process.

I picked up the Tamron because it seemed like such a tempting alternative to the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G. With its fixed f/2.8 max aperture and VC in one package, the Tamron stood a good chance of becoming my all-around, any available light, walkabout lens.

Here’s what I found.

Utility
"Great for people, street photography, and in tight quarters."

Because I take a lot of closeup street and indoor photos of my family, the 17-50mm (25.5-75mm FF equivalent) range turnes out to be rather useful. It is worth noting that Thom Hogan doesn’t care much for this range, but if this were the only standard lens in my kit, I’d have no problems keeping the lens on the camera most of the time.

For snapshots and people photography, I find that the standard zoom range on this puppy is nearly perfect. The long end could be a little longer but you get a comfortable working distance particularly in tight quarters. The 17mm end gives you a nice (if somewhat ho-hum) practical standard wide angle coverage.

Performance
"Decent optics, but boorish manners."

Optically speaking, this was a fine lens. Some have complained it isn’t as sharp as the original Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 but I found it to be pretty sharp all along the zoom and aperture range.

Now, I am not an authority on this stuff and I don’t spend a lot of time turning over each pixel, so, your mileage may vary. For actual technical numbers, see some of the reviews I mentioned.

But, check out the various text elements in the photo above. Handheld, winter evening, f/2.8 ISO 400(!) at shutter of 1/60 sec with VC on. That’s pretty cool for an unsteady shot in near-darkness.

Usability

"Meh."

While not heavy, the Tamron has noticeable ‘heft’. In fact, it weighs slightly more than the Nikkor 18-200mm VR I/II! The overall finish feels good (not cheapo). One minor point of annoyance, the bayonet mount and lens hood feel squishy.

On a more significant note, I found the VC mechanism somewhat distracting. It makes a glass-clinking noise and shudders perceptibly when engaged. As a fan of the whisper quiet Nikkor AF-S ‘silentwave’ system, the Tamron VC sounded and felt a bit…uncivilized. All this is a bit alarming until you get used to it; that is if you aren’t a little embarrassed first.

To be fair, the VC mechanism does work surprisingly well. I probably gained a stop or two with VC turned on. Also, I found the autofocus to be competent, not terribly fast and a bit loud, but probably as good as the excellent Nikon 18-55mm DX VR kit lens that this would have replaced.

These annoyances alone are probably not enough to be considered serious flaws.

Nonetheless, I didn’t keep it.

The17-50mm zoom range is useful particularly if you need a fast lens with a standard working range. However, I already own the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX which is practically glued to my Nikon D90 most of the time. After weighing my usage of both lenses, I decided I didn’t gain much more over the Nikkor 35mm prime. For most of the Tamron’s working zoom range, I think the 35mm is simpler, at least a stop faster, much lighter, and takes slightly better pictures.

Paying $600 plus dollars for an additional 25% functionality seemed extravagant.

Yes, the 17mm wide end is nice but I already have the Nikkor 18-55mm VR kit lens that is as good if not better at the wide end. And that dinky thing only costs about $180 street.

The final straw for me was the realization that I needed new 72mm filters for the Tamron and I don’t have anything else in my collection with a 72mm filter thread.

Recommendation
So, for about $625 street, it’s definitely a great mix of ‘speed’ and value if you need the convenience of a standard zoom. By comparison, the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G is about $1400 without VR (Vibration Reduction). Granted, the Nikkor is purportedly better built, better designed and comes highly recommended by the serious reviewers, but if you are like me, $1400 is pretty serious coin.

If you are easily annoyed, skip the Tamron, otherwise get one or the earlier non-VC version, and pocket the difference or put the rest towards something cool, like a good tripod or a prime lens.

talbot No. 4 Square



talbot No. 4 Square, originally uploaded by ernestkoe.

This one seems to be getting a bit of attention on flickr. It’s a shameless attempt at channelling Michael Kenna. It’s not really my personal photographic ‘vision’; the style is just a device towards a better understanding of long exposure photography which I do find seductive.

Next time, remember to turn off VR on the lens.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 739 other followers