Critiquing images

I have a hard time posting critiques/comments. Initially, I felt like I wasn't qualified, but I quickly learned that even a beginner can offer constructive criticism, so that is no longer an excuse.

I must spend a good 20-30 minutes each day browsing the galleries here on NPN. Often times, I will stare at an image that I either like or dislike, creating a comment in my mind, and then I will click away. Doesn't make any sense.

I feel like most images fall into one of three categories. There are those that are simply beautiful, and I rarely comment since I don't feel like I have anything new to add.

There are the images that are technically sound but lacking in inspirational quality. I have the hardest time critiquing these images and I find myself desperately searching for something to criticize. To the point where I am examining the horizon in search of a tilt, or looking for rogue dust spots. This seems silly to me, and I click away.

Then there are the images that are questionable in terms of technique, composition, etc. Although easier to critique, I rarely comment when others have already pointed out some tips. No sense in beating a dead horse, so to speak.

In case you're wondering where I'm going with this, I'm not really sure. It's getting late and I'm just going with the flow.

When I critique my own images, as well as others, I think I can sum up my internal critiquing system using these four criteria:

Execution
Artistic Vision
Perseverance
Wow Factor

Execution ecompasses all the technical aspects of photography and good technique. Nailing the exposure, sharpness, etc.

Artistic Vision is harder to quantify, but we know it when we see it. It's the creativity and all the subtle nuances that make photography an artform in its own right, just like painting or music.

Perserverance is about everything the photographer invested to get the shot. Time, energy, research, risking life and limb, etc. I don't mean to be overly dramatic, but for those of you who backpack into the snow-covered wilderness to get a shot of an unnamed peak at sunrise, that's what I'm talking about.

Wow Factor is just that. You know it when you see it, when you mutter under your breath, "Wow..." Maybe it is the summation of all the above.

So what I'm thinking is, would it be considered rude if I commented on images posted to NPN using these four criteria? Would any of you be offended if you got a comment that read:

Hi Joe,

Execution: 9
Artistic Vision: 5
Perserverance: 3 (not sure how I would really know this)
Wow Factor: 5

This is already going on, more or less. I think I just have a hard time telling someone, in words, how I feel their photo is a 5 in artistic vision and a 5 in wow factor and a 9 in execution.

That's all for now, time to go adjust some sliders to +10 saturation in the hope that I can increase wow factor to 6.

Jason

Jason,

Thanks for your well thought out and expressed opinion. I'm willing to bet that many have similar thoughts. I think your various scenarios/categories are pretty accurate as well. I think it's also pretty safe to say that we as individuals all have different styles, personalities, cultures, histories, training and life experiences that all work towards giving us our abilities to communicate. for some it comes easy, for others it's a literally a challenge; add to that and there's even a huge difference between speaking and writing.

I personally don't have an issue, nor would I be offended if you chose to use a point scale for your comments. In thinking about my own critiques, I thought to myself, I use these criteria as well - only I use simple words instead of numbers.

Here's a sample critique:

Joe,

Wow(wow factor,) this is beautiful; great eye to catch this (vision/artistry?) The composition is very good and this is a well crafted and executed image(execution.) Good job, I like it.

Lon

This is actually pretty darn close to an actual comment I may have made or could make.

Have you considered that perhaps it's a struggle to have to come up with a unique comment, just as it's a struggle for all of us to come up with unique and compelling imagery? Something to think about.

In the end, I think we have a good mix of thoughtful, technical and honest comments as well as plenty of redundant "attaboys." Sometimes it's easy and simply an acknowledgement to say "great shot;" Other times we may respond in detail, especially when folks ask for specific feedback.

Anyway, I think you've raised an interesting topic. Let's see what others have to say.

Lon

With the exception of "perserverance," I like all your criteria.

I don't think anyone would be offended. Would rather be graded than ignored, and this simple equation contains all that is necessary to review a picutre, except your emotion which you mighit add at the end. The personal reaction to an image does have more of an impact though.

Rating is not bad, but rating without any comment (explaining why you rate so) is very bad. That's why many post here in this community for the quality of the comments (and of course, quality of the people who comment too)

Thanks for your feedback Lon. I do struggle to come up with unique comments, and I suppose the rating idea is a way of circumventing that problem. I wonder how people would feel if NPN had a rating system, where we could quickly and easily give photos a numerical value for criteria such as these. The results could be kept private, available only to the photographer. I have a feeling that a lot of people would participate. It would offer anonymity and it might encourage useful participation for those of us who find it difficult to post for one reason or another. Like you mentioned, there's all manner of reasons why some of us communicate more effectively than others, and this might be another way to generate crititque/feedback.

I'm not suggesting that the current method of critique be changed at all - I think it works beautifully and it is one of the reasons why NPN is a special place. But if we can add to the usefulness of this community, maybe it is something to think about. I've heard people express disappointment in the ratio of image views to comments, and this might be one way of solving that.

I want to emphasize that I think NPN is a great resource and I am not critizicing the way things work here, just offering some food for thought.

Jason - As Arnab pointed out, other sites have used simply point and click ratings, and avoiding them is one reason people like to post here. The fact that it is a bit harder to comment, I think, makes the comments immensely more meaningful. I know I spend a fair amount of time looking when I comment; Whereas simply clicking on a number can lead people to be less thoughtful and more reactionary. Having to explain your views is a help to yourself and the OP. Obviously, you're still going through the same thought process for your example, but a lot of people wouldn't, I don't think.

With all due respect, I think an anonymous numerical ranking system is a bad idea for several reasons.

First, it robs the image poster of valuable feedback. As Arnab Banerjee points out, the "why" is the most important part of any critique. A number simply can't tell the photographer what he or she did right or wrong, what works or what doesn't work. There is another very popular photography web site that employs a numerical ranking system and it's not uncommon to see people begging for an explanation of why their images were rated a 3. Without an explanation of a numerical rank there is, in essence, no feedback.

Second, it robs the critiquer of valuable experience. I'm amazed at how much I learned by studying other folks images and thinking about what I like and what I don't like about them. This helps me critique my own images when I'm looking through the lens. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that critiquing might be more valuable than being critiqued.

Third, a anonymous numerical rank without a comment is cold and impersonal. It doesn't foster a sense of community.

Jason, I don't think you need to worry about making your comments unique. If you post your comment before reading any other comments then it will be unique even if it isn't. Does that make any sense?

Patricia, when I post an image that gets few comments I assume the image is unremarkable - no real problems but no real merit either. I have a lot of images like that in my library.

That's just my thoughts, freely given and worth what you paid.

I totally agree with everything you said, Mark. I am curious, however, if the inclusion of an anonymous ranking system would result in a decrease in written comments. If it does not, I think it might offer some benefit.

Perhaps one of my problems is the fact that I read everyone's else's comments before posting my own. I mainly do this to avoid being redundant, and it's one of the reasons I struggle to come up with anything to say.

Perhaps one of my problems is the fact that I read everyone's else's comments before posting my own. I mainly do this to avoid being redundant...

That's a good thing to do Jason, and a noble goal. But there's also value in 5 different people all saying that the FG is too dark, or that a lower angle would be better, etc. The idea that many people arrive at the same conclusion is pretty forceful...particularly if they don't read each others comments first.

I think there is an important distinction between evaluating or scoring an image and critiquing an image. Evaluation, or rating an image, is what judges do to determine which image is "best." That's not what I need or expect from NPN. When I post images here it's to get help in making that image and my other images better. Telling me a shot is "good" is not helpful, usually. Telling me that it has a blue cast, or would be better composed with a different crop, is extremely helpful. And I certainly don't mind being told it 5 times. One of the first things you notice around here is that there is no one right way (or at least no agreement on what the right way is).

I'm the first to admit my comments don't always rise to the level to which I aspire but, then, neither do my photos. But I try to do better with both.

I encourage you not to agonize over your comments, but instead to tell folks what you really think. Much of your thoughtful initial comments could easily be expressed as a critique.

There's no standard way to critique an image, and I'm happy that there isn't one. A numeric grading approach might be fast, but it quickly leads to formulaic thinking IMO. The most useful comments come from people who look at an image, and think about their reactions to it and then express those reactions in their own words. It doesn't matter what others have said in previous comments: each viewer can bring a unique perspective.

Judging the technical quality aspects of an image becomes rather easy to anyone who has mastered the basics of focus and exposure, and once mastered most photographers have enough respect for their own work that they will avoid posting images that come up short in the technical category. When a skilled photographer posts an image that falls below their normal standards it most likely means they've rushed an image to the web and overlooked a finishing step in their work flow. But it can also mean that something is out of calibration with their camera gear or computer monitor, so pointing it out respectfully is usually welcomed.

I see nothing wrong with adding a short "great job" type comment to an image that already has lots of similar comments - someone who has posted an exceptional image deserves recognition for it.

What I appreciate in comments/critiques are the ones that show the viewer actually looked at the image and spent the time to express a personal reaction to it. What was it about a particular image that caught the viewer's eye and justified the time and effort to respond to it?