I recently passed on links to a series of articles from the Luminous Landscape on reaching the next level photographically to a camera club I am involved with.
Anyway, this to an exchange of e-mails with one of the members leading to a question I can't quite verbalize for myself.
"How does one learn to critique your own work?"
Now, this is an easy question for someone starting out. Usually, as the articles point out, it is the simple things that will make a difference. Lighting, composition, use of color, shadows, time of day, making a 'connection' with the subject, especially if it is a portrait. And so you learn the basics, see those most correctable mistakes in your work and eliminate them, and suddenly you are a lot better.
Time goes on, and you gradually improve and you eventually reach a plateau. And then what?
You can seek outside critique of your photos, such as from local photographers or here. Things are seen by them that you would never pick up yourself, and yet are completely obvious once they are pointed out. After enough feedback, you eventually begin to see them for yourself, and improve.
But there will eventually be those images that are just "wrong", but still work. Or those images you shoot on Saturday, discard on Sunday, and then frantically search your hard drive trash bin for on Monday. Or even images that border on good vs great, but you are too attached to emotionally to be objective about.
So how do you force yourself to step back and say "Is this really a good photo?" "Is this really a step above what I have done previously?" "Is this something to keep and show?"
I am curious to know how you think about your work and how you edit it, once the easy task of culling the duds is done. How do you separate your best work from what is merely very, very good? Is this process integrated with your field work, and how? How do you push yourself to be better, and to recognize your photographic weaknesses? Or any other thoughts on being able to distance yourself from your work.
I read these articles with mixed feelings. The author made some very good observations and the accompanying images are excellent, but I have a hard time thinking of art in this formulaic manner. To me creativity is too dynamic, subjective, and often unexpected, to be put into categories and levels.
That aside, I think the most important editing phase is in the field. If it doesn't move you and you don't think you'll end up using it - don't capture it in the first place. This has some obvious practical implications but also some emotional ones. I think a lot of people end up frustrated when they are in a place they feel they "must" get images from, and when nothing obvious presents itself they try to force it, almost always unsuccessfully. In my mind this is a futile exercise - for once it won't buy you anything to have an image in your files that you'll never use, and it also gets in the way of just enjoying the place and your time there.
So, my best suggestion for editing in the field is - let the images reveal themselves to you, and allow yourself to enjoy the experience whether you come home with new images or not. You will gain an enjoyable field experience and have less work to do when you return.
I'll echo Guy cause by doing so I can sound pretty smart What I might add is that it takes a certain strength of character to accept critique whether it be from others or yourself. When I first started here I posted some pretty awful stuff that either got dinged or ignored. I can relate to Guy's statement about trying to make something happen when its just not there. It took filling a trashcan or two with slides of scenes with white skies to teach me to either forget about it, learn to use GNDs or just keep the sky out of the comp altogether. It takes time behind the viewfinder and then the screen to develop an eye for what works and I don't think it can be done by formula or shortcutted. I also think that to get the most out of a subject you need familiarity with it. I'm a competent landscape photographer but what separates me from Marc, Guy, Tony, Dan et. al. is that they are at once craftsman and naturalist for their prime subject areas and know when the light is likely to be best, where to be when, and what subjects have the most visual impact. Now let me loose in my garden where I know every leaf, flower and spider web and I'm at a different level.
An attitude that beginners need to cultivate is one that allows them to separate the image from themselves. A lousy photo doesn't make one a lousy person but I know there are many who take criticism of their images way too personally. It's a joy to interact with guys like Nathan Buck, Mike Moats, and a bunch of others in the Flora gallery who can take and deliver a hit when we hit a foul ball. OTOH some folks get downright defensive when flaws are pointed out. Makes me want to tell them to get a life but I usually end up being a bit more diplomatic. Bottom line, enjoy your images for what they mean to you and if improving your technique and art is something you really want to do and not just talk about then have the strength of character to expose your work and thinking to others and learn from the dings as well as the kudos.
I suppose part of what I am after here is from a teaching perspective. I do a fair number of presentations, critiques, some judging, etc and always struggle with how to help people make that next step. It is easier when they are first beginning - there is almost always something obvious to say and learn about.
But there are a lot people who I shoot with or talk to who are basically pretty solid photographers. They understand how to take a fairly good image (and do) and occasionally produce the "wow" image, and I think are ready to make the next step up in quality. These people I find myself at a loss as to how to constructively help.
Maybe what I am after here is how to instill a thought process of, that to improve, good enough isn't good enough, how to detach yourself from your work and that you need to both see and understand your weaknesses. AND at the same time do it constructively without coming across as some sort of ego-driven jerk. Much of this has to come from the person himself, but I'd love to be able to point someone in the right direction.
(BTW - I spent years teaching mathematics through the lower college levels. I found that far easier than this!)
Good points, Dan. I think once one has achieved proficiency with the technical aspects, it really boils down to creativity and attitude. Here's an excerpt from my current article that I think might be relevant:
In other words - put some of yourself into the image. Yes, we're down to semantics here, but if you believe linguistics heavyweight Noam Chomsky, "even the interpretation and use of words involves a process of free creation."
There is a vast difference between setting out to "shoot" a given subject vs. venturing to create a meaningful image of it. By definition meaning implies a conscious process of understanding, of interpretation, of seeking or expressing knowledge. Without sounding too "New Age" I can tell you that conditioning your brain to think in these terms can indeed make a meaningful difference in how and what you see as you approach a scene.
Further, the subject itself may not always produce the most meaningful image. Think in terms of composition and context: what can I do with the materials available to me? What order, arrangement, or relationship can I create that would be meaningful?
I think training one's mind to be more proactive/deliberate about composition and light is key here.
The same attitude can be applied in the editing/processing phases as well - bring the image up full screen, take a step back and ask yourself honestly - "does this speak to me?" or "can I use this to inspire someone?"
Starting to learn how to critique your own work starts by knowing what you want in a fine art print, what you are looking for which, to you, equals "quality" or "class" or other qualifiers that you are seeking and which are meaningful to you.
In my view, the only way to learn how to identify "quality" in a print is to look at master prints, either in museums or galleries, or directly in photographer's studios, or best to collect prints yourself. I describe both approaches in my current essay on this site "Collecting Fine Art Photographs". In my eyes, having a collection of prints is important. Looking at a lot of fine prints is crucial.
The only way to know what is fine cuisine is to taste it. This is empirical, not theoretical knowledge. The same rule applies to knowing what a fine print is.
What is the next step up in quality? To produce a better than fair shot? To be more consistent with the "wows"?
I am at the hit and miss stage. Sometimes I think I have a hit and it turns out to be a miss At times I get critiques on an image that I thought was a hit. That can be disappointing. Then I wish I could see my own work through the eyes of others. I believe one way to get close to doing that is to let the photo "age" a little. I set it aside for a few weeks, or longer, and then look at it again. Often the emotional attachment has worn away. That is happening with a lot of my favorite slides which I am in the process of editing- again. Many of my favorites are having a falling out with me. Too many.
A sincere desire to improve my work is the key to detaching myself from my work and see what my weaknesses are.
I've been following this thread since it started and I'd like to add that I read the three articles with great interest. The author certainly makes some valid points but, for what it's worth, I agree that this sort of thing can't be formulized. One point that I did find quite signficant is in soliciting constructive feedback on one's pictures, the bold, graphic and colorful postcard/calender type of image usually attracts more attention. I can't quote the author right now but he did imply that subtle doesn't cut it even though it may be a perfectly valid image.
NPN is the most mature and open minded of this type of critique forum that I've found, but it has been my experience that most photographers on other web sites of similar mandate are either hung up on the "rules of photography" or are not sufficiently adventurous to attempt something risky in terms of breaking said rules.
The photographer that I admire the most, and who is also my mentor, is a Canadian from New Brunswick ... Freeman Patterson. Recognized and acknowledged by The Canadian Counsil for the Arts, successfuly published over the course of many years and, in partnership with Andre Gallant, runs highly successful workshops, he is a master of subtle. I am sad to think that, among the majority of photographer that I know, Mr. Patterson's work would be ignored and dismissed. But among the arts community, who know or care nothing for the "rules" that supposedly govern photography, he is considered to be a credible artist. He simply creates his art with a mastery over his tools and knowledge.
I have everything he ever published and I cannot sit down with any one of his books without being moved to tears as I get lost in his images. When I said that he is my mentor, I must also humbly say that I have a long way to go to even qualify to be his student.
Discussion
7 replieshttp://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/next-level.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/next-level-2.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/levels3.shtml
(The articles are well worth reading.)
Anyway, this to an exchange of e-mails with one of the members leading to a question I can't quite verbalize for myself.
"How does one learn to critique your own work?"
Now, this is an easy question for someone starting out. Usually, as the articles point out, it is the simple things that will make a difference. Lighting, composition, use of color, shadows, time of day, making a 'connection' with the subject, especially if it is a portrait. And so you learn the basics, see those most correctable mistakes in your work and eliminate them, and suddenly you are a lot better.
Time goes on, and you gradually improve and you eventually reach a plateau. And then what?
You can seek outside critique of your photos, such as from local photographers or here. Things are seen by them that you would never pick up yourself, and yet are completely obvious once they are pointed out. After enough feedback, you eventually begin to see them for yourself, and improve.
But there will eventually be those images that are just "wrong", but still work. Or those images you shoot on Saturday, discard on Sunday, and then frantically search your hard drive trash bin for on Monday. Or even images that border on good vs great, but you are too attached to emotionally to be objective about.
So how do you force yourself to step back and say "Is this really a good photo?" "Is this really a step above what I have done previously?" "Is this something to keep and show?"
I am curious to know how you think about your work and how you edit it, once the easy task of culling the duds is done. How do you separate your best work from what is merely very, very good? Is this process integrated with your field work, and how? How do you push yourself to be better, and to recognize your photographic weaknesses? Or any other thoughts on being able to distance yourself from your work.
Thanks.
I read these articles with mixed feelings. The author made some very good observations and the accompanying images are excellent, but I have a hard time thinking of art in this formulaic manner. To me creativity is too dynamic, subjective, and often unexpected, to be put into categories and levels.
That aside, I think the most important editing phase is in the field. If it doesn't move you and you don't think you'll end up using it - don't capture it in the first place. This has some obvious practical implications but also some emotional ones. I think a lot of people end up frustrated when they are in a place they feel they "must" get images from, and when nothing obvious presents itself they try to force it, almost always unsuccessfully. In my mind this is a futile exercise - for once it won't buy you anything to have an image in your files that you'll never use, and it also gets in the way of just enjoying the place and your time there.
So, my best suggestion for editing in the field is - let the images reveal themselves to you, and allow yourself to enjoy the experience whether you come home with new images or not. You will gain an enjoyable field experience and have less work to do when you return.
Guy
An attitude that beginners need to cultivate is one that allows them to separate the image from themselves. A lousy photo doesn't make one a lousy person but I know there are many who take criticism of their images way too personally. It's a joy to interact with guys like Nathan Buck, Mike Moats, and a bunch of others in the Flora gallery who can take and deliver a hit when we hit a foul ball. OTOH some folks get downright defensive when flaws are pointed out. Makes me want to tell them to get a life but I usually end up being a bit more diplomatic. Bottom line, enjoy your images for what they mean to you and if improving your technique and art is something you really want to do and not just talk about then have the strength of character to expose your work and thinking to others and learn from the dings as well as the kudos.
I suppose part of what I am after here is from a teaching perspective. I do a fair number of presentations, critiques, some judging, etc and always struggle with how to help people make that next step. It is easier when they are first beginning - there is almost always something obvious to say and learn about.
But there are a lot people who I shoot with or talk to who are basically pretty solid photographers. They understand how to take a fairly good image (and do) and occasionally produce the "wow" image, and I think are ready to make the next step up in quality. These people I find myself at a loss as to how to constructively help.
Maybe what I am after here is how to instill a thought process of, that to improve, good enough isn't good enough, how to detach yourself from your work and that you need to both see and understand your weaknesses. AND at the same time do it constructively without coming across as some sort of ego-driven jerk. Much of this has to come from the person himself, but I'd love to be able to point someone in the right direction.
(BTW - I spent years teaching mathematics through the lower college levels. I found that far easier than this!)
I think training one's mind to be more proactive/deliberate about composition and light is key here.
The same attitude can be applied in the editing/processing phases as well - bring the image up full screen, take a step back and ask yourself honestly - "does this speak to me?" or "can I use this to inspire someone?"
Guy
In my view, the only way to learn how to identify "quality" in a print is to look at master prints, either in museums or galleries, or directly in photographer's studios, or best to collect prints yourself. I describe both approaches in my current essay on this site "Collecting Fine Art Photographs". In my eyes, having a collection of prints is important. Looking at a lot of fine prints is crucial.
The only way to know what is fine cuisine is to taste it. This is empirical, not theoretical knowledge. The same rule applies to knowing what a fine print is.
I am at the hit and miss stage. Sometimes I think I have a hit and it turns out to be a miss
A sincere desire to improve my work is the key to detaching myself from my work and see what my weaknesses are.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
NPN is the most mature and open minded of this type of critique forum that I've found, but it has been my experience that most photographers on other web sites of similar mandate are either hung up on the "rules of photography" or are not sufficiently adventurous to attempt something risky in terms of breaking said rules.
The photographer that I admire the most, and who is also my mentor, is a Canadian from New Brunswick ... Freeman Patterson. Recognized and acknowledged by The Canadian Counsil for the Arts, successfuly published over the course of many years and, in partnership with Andre Gallant, runs highly successful workshops, he is a master of subtle. I am sad to think that, among the majority of photographer that I know, Mr. Patterson's work would be ignored and dismissed. But among the arts community, who know or care nothing for the "rules" that supposedly govern photography, he is considered to be a credible artist. He simply creates his art with a mastery over his tools and knowledge.
I have everything he ever published and I cannot sit down with any one of his books without being moved to tears as I get lost in his images. When I said that he is my mentor, I must also humbly say that I have a long way to go to even qualify to be his student.
Bob