When should you start critiquing your work? Obviously at the time of you taking it. How do you go about it? What are some things you consider? Do you shoot first, ask questions later? In times of hurry I do that. I think it is essential to know how to critique your own images. When you are satisfied with what you see in the viewfinder and click the shutter you should be satisfied with the final outcome, assuming the exposure is correct.
Will, well, I agree that you should start critiquing your work when you are out shooting. I think of that more as working the image in the field, but I can accept your premise for purposes of the conversation. I will occasionally shoot first and ask questions later, but only if it's apparent I have strong landscape/lighting/photo possibilities. Otherwise "asking questions later" usually ends up leading to just one question - "Why did I waste my time and expensive film on THAT??".
On the other hand, I am forced to disagree with your second point that if you are satisfied with what you see in the viewfinder you should be satisfied with the final product. Well, maybe not disagree because in theory it sounds great. However, that just doesn't seem to be my experience. No matter how careful and selective I try to be in the field, I still throw out as many or more images as I keep, and the images that I REALLY feel are strong are few and far between. That may say something about how picky I am, but overall I think that the camera/film combination (or sensor, whatever) just is not the same as the experience of being in a location. Because of that difference, even if I like what I see in the viewfinder (ground glass usually for me) that does not mean I am assured that I'll be satisfied once the film is developed. YMMV..... However, that DOES point to the importance of editing your own work both in the field and after the shoot on the light box.....
CJ
Posted by Carol Hyman on April 2, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Will,
Here's another thought to ponder.
Lots of times I'll see something, an object, a roof line, flowers by the side of the road, a cool coil of wire, and I note the time of day and the light in the sky and say to myself, "That's a morning shot, or a late evening shot." So along with critiquing before, during, and after, sometimes there's some planning and thinking about a prospective shot or idea.
And then other times, I have no choice because I am where I am and it's the only time to shoot, but even then I do a lot of thinking about DoF, the background, that stray object that is in the way, getting down to the level of the object, what angle will really work. Even then I'm asking myself (most of the time ;^) what do I want to accomplish with this shot?
I find that along with many many shots, from different angles, different speeds, bracketing, I still delete, delete, and delete.
And I know the more I shoot, the better results I get. Sometimes I even have an image that's really on target and I accomplish everything I set out to do.
John, I like your response. All those voices are building a foundation that will help you improve your photography. Those "voices" help me too.
Christopher, I too find fault with my photographs even though I thought they looked just right in the viewfinder. Why is that? If I discover afterwards that the horizon is too centered, why did I not correct it when I was composing the shot? Perhaps it is because we are squinting and peering with one eye through a tiny window called a viewfinder
Of course not all self critiquing of one's photography is in the field. Eventually you should learn to anticipate which of the voices John mentions will be muttering in your head. When someone points out a flaw or a way to improve the shot it is beneficial to apply the advice when the opportunity arises. One critique I received here long ago and which has been etched into my mind is regarding the sky. If it is dramatic, flaunt it. So if the sky is exceptional, it will dominate the image. There is something awry with the composition in my latest post in ESS. I am not sure what it is, but I want to find out. Perhaps it is lacking a clearly defined subject. Once I know it will be another voice to guide me.
Carol, I think of the same things too. Except I often fail to ask myself the question you ask. "What do I want to accomplish with this shot?" Or something similar like "What am I trying to say with this shot?"
Still, no matter how careful and fussy I am during the shoot, and I am heeding the voices, I too still delete, delete, and delete.
Great response, John. The more I look at everyone's images and critiques here, the more I hear those voices when I'm shooting. And I think it's helping. Slowly but surely...
And this may be a bit of a tangent, but one of the best tips I got regarding immediate self critique (for us beginners at least) is to leave the histogram turned on. I take a shot, I glance down to see the captured image, and I immediately see if I'm blowing highlights. Before I got into that habit, I would shoot dozens of pictures that looked great in the immediate review on the tiny LCD, only to upload them later and discover to my horror that they were all overexposed.
A similar tip applies for focus. For relatively stationary subjects, if you have time to review a shot and zoom in, you can often detect missed focus and correct it for the next shot. Sometimes after an initial autofocus, I switch to manual and tweak it from there. Otherwise autofocus is likely to keep missing with every shot.
A quick update for clarification: Those tips weren't directed at you, Will, but rather at other beginners like myself. I like to think that you more experienced photographers don't mess up exposure and focus as often as I do.
When I am out in the field I make sure that I don't hear other people's voices. Instead, I try my best to listen to my own, however small and insignificant it may be. Since I am not adept in many of the things listed by John above, my photographs can be considered inferior to that of the regulars. But that is OK because working in this fashion makes me feel better about myself and my photography.
Posted by Richard Wong on April 2, 2007 at 7:52 PM
I ask one question of myself when shooting. Does this feel like the story i want to tell? If the answer is yes, then I try whatever I need to do to get the shot. If no, then I try something else. There could be 10 technical things wrong with the shot, but if it captures the spirit of the moment then it is a successful image. On the flip side, a technical masterpiece can still be worthless if it doesn't have that one thing, "it" factor, that unexplained thing it is that gives it charm. i could go on and on, but I have to run some errands right now.
Your question ought to be posed in terms of subject selection. I guess one could also include the technical aspects and combine that into what you call work, but my sense is the question ought not be about those facets. Question is in part an individual one depending on a photographer's style while also being in part common to what our general human visual system experiences as positively aesthetic. Of course there are whole chapters in outdoor photog books devoted to subject selection so a general question about such is a bit too broad to be discussed on a web forum without answers being all over the place. The main task at hand is to locate what is beautiful and or interesting within the vastness of Earthly nature while filtering that with an understanding of how one might capture that onto a rectangular window with media limitations.
Decades ago while shooting 35mm with a manual SLR, during days when film was cheap, I shot first and asked questions later. But one will quickly find such a strategy nauseating during review, a waste of good time in the field, and unsatisfying for one's ego. Thus the long journey towards better and better results with less rejects. With medium and then large format there are increasing penalties to pay for wasting time and material. Today with digital cameras and huge memories, there is once again a small price to pay in cost though a greater cost in review effort if one takes too many reject images.
As for the second question, I pretty much agree with what Chris said and that is also from a view camera perspective where one really needs to be selective. With my small digital Coolpix, the LCD viewfinder is hopeless for the purpose of critically evaluating results. What I've seen on some D-SLR's is of course better. But I've been underwhelmed with much of what I've seen in my admittedly limited experience from D-SLRs as a big ground glass is so much more satisfying. Looking at a big ground glass even though it may be upsidedown can be rather satisfying in terms of recognizing particularly good composed subject. But being upsidedown is still a serious issue despite the fact one can view a scene by direct non-camera view.. ...David
Troy, messed up exposures is my most frequent self-critique But my new Nikon D80 is making it easier.
Anil, your photos inferior? Who are you trying to fool? But I know what you are saying. You got to listen to your own voice first to assure that your work remains your own.
Richard, I agree, the spirit of the moment, that "it" factor should override any other considerations. Your motion blurred rodeo clown shot certainly is a fine example.
"The main task at hand is to locate what is beautiful and or interesting with the vastness of Earthly nature while filtering that with an understanding of how one might capture that onto a rectangular window with media limitations."
Amen to that, David. With our eyes we are moved by what we see and it can be a challenge to capture that, complete with emotional content, into a 2 dimensional little rectangle. I constantly find scenes that look good to the eye but does nothing for me through the viewfinder.
Thank you all again for your response.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Richard Wong on April 3, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Thanks Will. That rodeo shot was a case of having to work around technical limitations. Dim lighting in that case since it was indoors. Most of my attempted static shots were disasters even at f2.8, high ISO so I figured either all my shots are going to suck or I'm going to go down while messing around and hopefully get something that feels like the moment even if it's a technical disaster. So i made my camera pretend like I was running from the bull when I shot it.
Discussion
9 repliesI am very interested in your thoughts on this.
Thank you.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
On the other hand, I am forced to disagree with your second point that if you are satisfied with what you see in the viewfinder you should be satisfied with the final product. Well, maybe not disagree because in theory it sounds great. However, that just doesn't seem to be my experience. No matter how careful and selective I try to be in the field, I still throw out as many or more images as I keep, and the images that I REALLY feel are strong are few and far between. That may say something about how picky I am, but overall I think that the camera/film combination (or sensor, whatever) just is not the same as the experience of being in a location. Because of that difference, even if I like what I see in the viewfinder (ground glass usually for me) that does not mean I am assured that I'll be satisfied once the film is developed. YMMV..... However, that DOES point to the importance of editing your own work both in the field and after the shoot on the light box.....
CJ
Here's another thought to ponder.
Lots of times I'll see something, an object, a roof line, flowers by the side of the road, a cool coil of wire, and I note the time of day and the light in the sky and say to myself, "That's a morning shot, or a late evening shot." So along with critiquing before, during, and after, sometimes there's some planning and thinking about a prospective shot or idea.
And then other times, I have no choice because I am where I am and it's the only time to shoot, but even then I do a lot of thinking about DoF, the background, that stray object that is in the way, getting down to the level of the object, what angle will really work. Even then I'm asking myself (most of the time ;^) what do I want to accomplish with this shot?
I find that along with many many shots, from different angles, different speeds, bracketing, I still delete, delete, and delete.
And I know the more I shoot, the better results I get. Sometimes I even have an image that's really on target and I accomplish everything I set out to do.
Mostly Will, Enjoy.
Carol
http://hy-tec-training.com
Christopher, I too find fault with my photographs even though I thought they looked just right in the viewfinder. Why is that? If I discover afterwards that the horizon is too centered, why did I not correct it when I was composing the shot? Perhaps it is because we are squinting and peering with one eye through a tiny window called a viewfinder
Of course not all self critiquing of one's photography is in the field. Eventually you should learn to anticipate which of the voices John mentions will be muttering in your head. When someone points out a flaw or a way to improve the shot it is beneficial to apply the advice when the opportunity arises. One critique I received here long ago and which has been etched into my mind is regarding the sky. If it is dramatic, flaunt it. So if the sky is exceptional, it will dominate the image. There is something awry with the composition in my latest post in ESS. I am not sure what it is, but I want to find out. Perhaps it is lacking a clearly defined subject. Once I know it will be another voice to guide me.
Carol, I think of the same things too. Except I often fail to ask myself the question you ask. "What do I want to accomplish with this shot?" Or something similar like "What am I trying to say with this shot?"
Still, no matter how careful and fussy I am during the shoot, and I am heeding the voices, I too still delete, delete, and delete.
Thank you all.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
And this may be a bit of a tangent, but one of the best tips I got regarding immediate self critique (for us beginners at least) is to leave the histogram turned on. I take a shot, I glance down to see the captured image, and I immediately see if I'm blowing highlights. Before I got into that habit, I would shoot dozens of pictures that looked great in the immediate review on the tiny LCD, only to upload them later and discover to my horror that they were all overexposed.
A similar tip applies for focus. For relatively stationary subjects, if you have time to review a shot and zoom in, you can often detect missed focus and correct it for the next shot. Sometimes after an initial autofocus, I switch to manual and tweak it from there. Otherwise autofocus is likely to keep missing with every shot.
A quick update for clarification: Those tips weren't directed at you, Will, but rather at other beginners like myself. I like to think that you more experienced photographers don't mess up exposure and focus as often as I do.
Decades ago while shooting 35mm with a manual SLR, during days when film was cheap, I shot first and asked questions later. But one will quickly find such a strategy nauseating during review, a waste of good time in the field, and unsatisfying for one's ego. Thus the long journey towards better and better results with less rejects. With medium and then large format there are increasing penalties to pay for wasting time and material. Today with digital cameras and huge memories, there is once again a small price to pay in cost though a greater cost in review effort if one takes too many reject images.
As for the second question, I pretty much agree with what Chris said and that is also from a view camera perspective where one really needs to be selective. With my small digital Coolpix, the LCD viewfinder is hopeless for the purpose of critically evaluating results. What I've seen on some D-SLR's is of course better. But I've been underwhelmed with much of what I've seen in my admittedly limited experience from D-SLRs as a big ground glass is so much more satisfying. Looking at a big ground glass even though it may be upsidedown can be rather satisfying in terms of recognizing particularly good composed subject. But being upsidedown is still a serious issue despite the fact one can view a scene by direct non-camera view.. ...David
Anil, your photos inferior? Who are you trying to fool?
Richard, I agree, the spirit of the moment, that "it" factor should override any other considerations. Your motion blurred rodeo clown shot certainly is a fine example.
"The main task at hand is to locate what is beautiful and or interesting with the vastness of Earthly nature while filtering that with an understanding of how one might capture that onto a rectangular window with media limitations."
Amen to that, David. With our eyes we are moved by what we see and it can be a challenge to capture that, complete with emotional content, into a 2 dimensional little rectangle. I constantly find scenes that look good to the eye but does nothing for me through the viewfinder.
Thank you all again for your response.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada