Posted by Brian Monk on April 17, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Hi y'all. There has been much posted here in the last few months on critiquing photographs. The publishers, editors,and moderators of the site have been exceptionally clear in their wishes, and very concerned by the balance of criticism and praise (Bless you and Bravo!).
One thing I would like to see, or at least know, pertains to the actual technique of critiquing.
I would like to know how you do it, individually. What is your personal process for examining and critically viewing a photograph? Is it a specific step-by-step process, or a gestalt feeling, or both, or something else?
I, for example, look at a photo, and generally have a reaction. I don't rate the reaction, but generally it's either positive, negative, or ambivalent. The I become much more specific, and determine what it is about the image that I like/dislike. Some of these things have specific terms (bakground/bokeh, DOF, composition, etc) and some don't (how do you quantify a feeling?). After all of this, I choose to either write this down in a critique or not.
I have found that critiquing photos takes some courage (I'm no expert!), but is rewarding because I now look much more critically at my photos.
Thank you for the read, hope to read your answers!
Posted by Jim Erhardt on April 17, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Brian, I think you summed up my approach as well. I look, react, feel, think, write.
Posted by Bill Chambers on April 17, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Good topic Brian,
It depends a lot on who's work I'm looking at. If it's someone whose style is similar to mine I tear it apart to see what I like and don't like, check out the perspective, technicals if they're included, and basically try to learn as much from it as I can so I can incorporate in my work what I see as positives and leave out what I view as negatives. It's much more of a technical experience for me than just enjoying apretty image. My comments may be based on the prettiness aspect, but I try to apply lessons learned into my images.
On work that isn't similar to mine I generally critique based more on how it appeals to me aesthically and emotionally.
I've always been of the opinion I learn MUCH more from critiqueing others than from others critiqueing my work. That's because I see their work through my eyes and my emotions. That certainly doesn't mean I don't appreciate others' critiques, because I really do appreciate anyone taking the time and effort to comment/critique.
Posted by Michie Wong on April 17, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Brian,
Being new to this forum, I basically have to have a gut reaction to the photo - either positive or negative to comment on it (I'm just learning about the technical stuff). However, it is definately harder to have positive feedback on something that is not appealing (emotionally) to me. But if the image is getting a lot of negative or no feedback, I really try to find something good to say about it as this is what I would want from others. There's nothing worse than 150 views with no comments....
Posted by Doyle Thomas on April 17, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Negative comment is better than no comment. I recently got blasted for an image I posted at PNWNP and I am ok with that. See:
HOW ABOUT THIS FOR A FLOWING SHOT.
These images are intended to provide the viewer with no focal point and no instructions to move the eye. The viewer must find their own way through without help. That takes thinking and thinking is work.
This is a different approach to landscape compsition. That my peers, whom I respect, don't like what I am doing is of course concerning.
Time is the best test and one of two things will happen as I continue this course. I will convince myself that I am wrong or I will convince others that I am right.
I base my critique on what I know and learned with a dash of personal taste added. If I am not sure then I say so in the comment and leave the conclusions up to the photographer. My first and uppermost concern is the manner the critique is given. Honest thoughts are also important. If I say "I like it", I mean it. And I enforce that by saying why. Most of the time.
Critique is often countered. It is up to the photographer to decide wether or not to accept the critique and learn from it.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by philip lewin on April 17, 2007 at 5:30 PM
An excellent topic, and I think especially relevant for this forum because most people here are avid photographers. Unlike the general public, readers of this site all are thinking to themselves "what would I have done differently if I were in that same spot?" when they critique an image.
The success of an image to me depends on whether is speaks for itself, regardless of the purpose. If its a record shot of an amazing event with some technical flaws that is fine, or if its commercial quality work of an average subject with brilliant lighting that can work too. At the end of the day a photo must have something about it that makes you stop scanning the web page and forces you to look at it. We can all ignore soft focus on an image that really moves us, and we can appreciate craftsmanship even if its a picture we've seen hundreds (or slot canyon thousands) of times before.
The participants of this forum are so good about actively giving good advice, so I like to try and offer the photographer something unique and not so obvious an opinion. I think a critique should give the photographer something to think about, not just a pat on the back or kick in the f-stop. Great topic!
It's an insightful observation that critiquing takes courage. A good critique is thoughtful and personal, revealing a little something of ourselves in the process of articulating our thoughts; putting it out there for others to read can be as intimidating as putting up a photograph..and equally rewarding.
Discussion
7 repliesOne thing I would like to see, or at least know, pertains to the actual technique of critiquing.
I would like to know how you do it, individually. What is your personal process for examining and critically viewing a photograph? Is it a specific step-by-step process, or a gestalt feeling, or both, or something else?
I, for example, look at a photo, and generally have a reaction. I don't rate the reaction, but generally it's either positive, negative, or ambivalent. The I become much more specific, and determine what it is about the image that I like/dislike. Some of these things have specific terms (bakground/bokeh, DOF, composition, etc) and some don't (how do you quantify a feeling?). After all of this, I choose to either write this down in a critique or not.
I have found that critiquing photos takes some courage (I'm no expert!), but is rewarding because I now look much more critically at my photos.
Thank you for the read, hope to read your answers!
It depends a lot on who's work I'm looking at. If it's someone whose style is similar to mine I tear it apart to see what I like and don't like, check out the perspective, technicals if they're included, and basically try to learn as much from it as I can so I can incorporate in my work what I see as positives and leave out what I view as negatives. It's much more of a technical experience for me than just enjoying apretty image. My comments may be based on the prettiness aspect, but I try to apply lessons learned into my images.
On work that isn't similar to mine I generally critique based more on how it appeals to me aesthically and emotionally.
I've always been of the opinion I learn MUCH more from critiqueing others than from others critiqueing my work. That's because I see their work through my eyes and my emotions. That certainly doesn't mean I don't appreciate others' critiques, because I really do appreciate anyone taking the time and effort to comment/critique.
Being new to this forum, I basically have to have a gut reaction to the photo - either positive or negative to comment on it (I'm just learning about the technical stuff). However, it is definately harder to have positive feedback on something that is not appealing (emotionally) to me. But if the image is getting a lot of negative or no feedback, I really try to find something good to say about it as this is what I would want from others. There's nothing worse than 150 views with no comments....
HOW ABOUT THIS FOR A FLOWING SHOT.
These images are intended to provide the viewer with no focal point and no instructions to move the eye. The viewer must find their own way through without help. That takes thinking and thinking is work.
This is a different approach to landscape compsition. That my peers, whom I respect, don't like what I am doing is of course concerning.
Time is the best test and one of two things will happen as I continue this course. I will convince myself that I am wrong or I will convince others that I am right.
Doyle
Critique is often countered. It is up to the photographer to decide wether or not to accept the critique and learn from it.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
The success of an image to me depends on whether is speaks for itself, regardless of the purpose. If its a record shot of an amazing event with some technical flaws that is fine, or if its commercial quality work of an average subject with brilliant lighting that can work too. At the end of the day a photo must have something about it that makes you stop scanning the web page and forces you to look at it. We can all ignore soft focus on an image that really moves us, and we can appreciate craftsmanship even if its a picture we've seen hundreds (or slot canyon thousands) of times before.
The participants of this forum are so good about actively giving good advice, so I like to try and offer the photographer something unique and not so obvious an opinion. I think a critique should give the photographer something to think about, not just a pat on the back or kick in the f-stop. Great topic!