|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/20/2006 10:01:20 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I wonder if it's occurred to anyone that we might incorporate TWO CC boxes to check? You could check one or the other, requesting a technical crit (which is what I think most people are seeking) or an "artistic" (for lack of a better word) crit. Possibly the CC members could specify which type of critique they wish to give (including both) and there could be two separate queues...
Robt. |
This might well give some people on both sides of the river what they want and likely expect, but how can anyone measure an image without considering its place, relations and effects? How can one determine what technical elements should be present, and what, without seeing what for, would be appropriate to the point of being able to say "Yes, this is well executed." Nothing worse, as you and I know, than a 'sharp picture of a fuzzy idea'.
And the idea, I thought, was to regard technical aspects as subordinated to the gist and entire content of an image, not to a 'subject' but to its complete 'soul', immediate and latent. The technical aspects cannot, sensibly, be separated from that which determines their presence and form of application in the first place.
If we were to deliver a critique limited to technical observation only, how the hell would we show why any given DOF or selective focus should be better or more appropriate than another? How can we appreciate, never mind "suggest" preferred choices without arrogance, if we do not consider perspective, balance, composition and what have you in light of their unique function here, as opposed to in some completely different world of a picture?
If you see a cow inna field, let us have a picture of it, the way you see it: big field -speck of a cow. Would you want someone from the CC tell you to fill the frame with your subject, only because he's a techie and has therefore missed that the subject is the relation between the field and the cow and not 900 pounds of cow alone?
No box can accomplish anything, only we can, if then we have a mind to do so and that only if we care enough about photography and are excited enough about the prospect of seeing pictures we don't see every day.
This (the infectious excitement of it) is the best teacher anyone could hope for. It is the best teacher, because it shows it is vision that leads to a mastery of skills. And when we have it the other way around we will perpetuate the status quo and show how to apply technical skills to pictures who don't demand any.
No wonder so many of us burn out and take up another hobby.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2006 01:14:33 AM · #227 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
No wonder so many of us burn out and take up another hobby. |
Somedays, I wish I could, but I simply cannot. |
|
|
|
10/21/2006 10:45:31 AM · #228 |
The fact remains that to be an "artist" means working on basic skills, and not everything that gets posted in DPC challenges (not even most of it, perhaps) is looking anywhere beyond that exploration of these skills. It's relatively rare to see an image here that cannot be improved by further attention to the craft of photography, and critiques that focus on the craft, the technical aspects of the work, are IMO immensely valuable in their own right.
If an image moves me at an emotional level I would be inclined to critique it at the same level, but to be honest few of the images I draw on my forays into the CC queue do that; most of them are photographs that need fundamental, technical improvement, and I tend to focus on that because it's something that's immediately useful.
R. |
|
|
|
10/21/2006 11:57:11 AM · #229 |
Amen!
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The fact remains that to be an "artist" means working on basic skills, and not everything that gets posted in DPC challenges (not even most of it, perhaps) is looking anywhere beyond that exploration of these skills. It's relatively rare to see an image here that cannot be improved by further attention to the craft of photography, and critiques that focus on the craft, the technical aspects of the work, are IMO immensely valuable in their own right.
If an image moves me at an emotional level I would be inclined to critique it at the same level, but to be honest few of the images I draw on my forays into the CC queue do that; most of them are photographs that need fundamental, technical improvement, and I tend to focus on that because it's something that's immediately useful.
R. |
|
|
|
|
10/21/2006 12:23:05 PM · #230 |
Ya know.
I go to the Getty. For those that don't know this is a world famous art museum here in LA, CA.
I look at the paintings there. In wonderment, I can not guess to what the image is until I read what the little caption underneath the painting says.
I look again at painting, and get a general benefit from that caption now that I know what I am looking at.
Stuff like 'triangulation', and 'eye movement', and 'lighting'. Similiar to photography, but all with oil on canvas. Great masters, even then, new the fundementals of art which in todays terms are now in the guidelines of photography.
Today, here on this site, DPC does not share any of these fundamentals.
All that anyone knows is what is within the challenges.
If the challenge is "Blue", for example, no one here knows what to look for when it comes to 'triangulation', or 'minimalism', or 'portraiture', or 'single light'.
Hell, some people here think that if it is a "close up" that it's a "macro". Not the same.
So if the subject does not portray a blue thingy, and is pretty, and no one knows what to look for, then those masters of photography are thrown out of the running for a stupid virtual ribbon with low scores.
That's when we get these threads bitching about how to critique.
If there is going to be 'parity', then DPC needs to bump up the game to the next level in the 'HOW TO's' with ALL artistic fundamentals for all to learn. Not just the RULE OF THIRDS either, I mean ALL.
Subjectivness will still be around, as it should be in art, but at least the majority of members will be more well rounded in their viewing and critiqueing of images, and art.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2006 12:31:45 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The fact remains that to be an "artist" means working on basic skills, and not everything that gets posted in DPC challenges (not even most of it, perhaps) is looking anywhere beyond that exploration of these skills. It's relatively rare to see an image here that cannot be improved by further attention to the craft of photography, and critiques that focus on the craft, the technical aspects of the work, are IMO immensely valuable in their own right.
If an image moves me at an emotional level I would be inclined to critique it at the same level, but to be honest few of the images I draw on my forays into the CC queue do that; most of them are photographs that need fundamental, technical improvement, and I tend to focus on that because it's something that's immediately useful.
R. |
Okay, one more time, with feeling:
How do you know when to tell someone a photograph needs more dof or less dof? How do you know what direction the light should be coming from? How do you know what shutter speed would work better? How can you know anything unless you know what the photo is trying to be?
It is this attempt to understand what the photo is, what it is trying to be, or what it needs to be that is the "artistic critique" I am talking about. If you don't include that, then the photographer has no idea what to do with the techniques you are proscribing.
It's funny to hear this argument from you, since I consider you one of the best examples of an "integrated" critiquer. Maybe you are so integrated that you don't realize how unintegrated many comments are.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2006 12:34:22 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
If there is going to be 'parity', then DPC needs to bump up the game to the next level in the 'HOW TO's' with ALL artistic fundamentals for all to learn. Not just the RULE OF THIRDS either, I mean ALL. |
I actually want to do some of these tutorials, but what's been stopping me is I'm not sure how to legally and ethically include images of famous paintings (the paintings themselves are copyright-free but often the photos of the paintings are protected). If I could get some advice on including this sort of thing, I'd much appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2006 01:23:16 PM · #233 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The fact remains that to be an "artist" means working on basic skills, and not everything that gets posted in DPC challenges (not even most of it, perhaps) is looking anywhere beyond that exploration of these skills. It's relatively rare to see an image here that cannot be improved by further attention to the craft of photography, and critiques that focus on the craft, the technical aspects of the work, are IMO immensely valuable in their own right.
If an image moves me at an emotional level I would be inclined to critique it at the same level, but to be honest few of the images I draw on my forays into the CC queue do that; most of them are photographs that need fundamental, technical improvement, and I tend to focus on that because it's something that's immediately useful.
R. |
To be an artist means just a little more than just working on basic skills, I'm sure. Of course, you're quite right when you say that "not everything that gets posted in DPC challenges ... is looking anywhere beyond that exploration of these skills". I also agree that attention to craft is valuable and needed.
I disagree, and passionately so, with the implication that the technical can be addressed without reference to that which should dictate its application and execution. If we do so, we substitute cause and effect with conjecture. If we do so, we only propagate the (false) idea that every slick package contains a masterpiece, that the be-all and end-all of the art and craft of photography is achieved via the development of technical skill alone.
The practice of shutting our eyes to that which is not as immediately visible and measurable in an image as sharpness or a degree of shadow noise would be, although immensely popular and convenient to those who restrict their vision or writing to such a simplification, IMHO, only contributes contempt to any sincere and unsuspecting student of photography, who is led to believe that he will get somewhere interesting without having to look for himself.
When our focus is on the technical, and, yes, there are occasions when it is the technical that needs attention, must also show -and this is the care and push of my argument- the why of it, since it is that which governs it.
When we deliver or receive a critique, let us have, at least, an attempt at a sound one, one that considers sincerely and one that is, at a minimum, respectful of the sum of its parts and the way these relate an instant.
There is plenty of room for the discussion of particulars which do not have to consider much anything outside of it in the forums, via personal discourse and whatever other ways we choose and have at our disposition.
When someone requests a critique on a (whole) photograph, however, let's give him that, regardless of who he is and what he may have been conditioned to expect. Let him have the whole shebang inclusive of opinion, speculation and questions raised by the image, but let us also qualify our findings in terms of what they are, so that
we leave the photo's author sufficient room and opportunity to make his own decisions.
Message edited by author 2006-10-21 13:25:02.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2006 02:01:06 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The fact remains that to be an "artist" means working on basic skills, and not everything that gets posted in DPC challenges (not even most of it, perhaps) is looking anywhere beyond that exploration of these skills. It's relatively rare to see an image here that cannot be improved by further attention to the craft of photography, and critiques that focus on the craft, the technical aspects of the work, are IMO immensely valuable in their own right.
If an image moves me at an emotional level I would be inclined to critique it at the same level, but to be honest few of the images I draw on my forays into the CC queue do that; most of them are photographs that need fundamental, technical improvement, and I tend to focus on that because it's something that's immediately useful.
R. |
Being an "artist" means using skills intentionally to create the desired image, regardless of what some others decide is the "correct" way.
As an example, one of my friends created a body of photographic work that was intentionally quite out of focus, even to the point that they physically detached the lens from the camera body. To fully appreciate it, the viewer had to let go of the assumption that all photographs necessitate sharp focus. Once that hurdle was overcome, the beauty of the work was quite evident.
The fact that the work was significantly out of focus does not imply that the photographer needed to work on getting things in focus. They are quite capable of that, yet they chose to do just the opposite. A critique that harped on the lack of focus would have absolutely no meaning other than indicate the failure of the viewer to live up to the challenge presented to them by the photographer.
When I see an image put before me for critique, who am I to assume what intent the photographer had? I can only take the image as it is and attempt to convey my response to it.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2006 04:01:48 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As an example, one of my friends created a body of photographic work that was intentionally quite out of focus, even to the point that they physically detached the lens from the camera body. To fully appreciate it, the viewer had to let go of the assumption that all photographs necessitate sharp focus. Once that hurdle was overcome, the beauty of the work was quite evident.
|
What a silly idea
This does pre-suppose though, that all of the technical choices in a photo for critique are intentional.
For some that's entirely appropriate - the critique should discuss the success or failure of those choices. But there are plenty of others entered into challenges, which ask for critiques, where the photographer probably or possibly isn't even aware of the choices they are making, or how they could be changed. |
|
|
|
10/21/2006 04:28:00 PM · #236 |
I don't see why anyone needs to make the assumption that if I (or any other critter) chooses to critique the technical aspect of an image then I/we must be trying to impose our own preconceptions on it. I'm perfectly capable of looking at image that "breaks the rules", making the presumption that the rule-breaking is intentional, and judging it on its own merits. I do it all the time.
But I think it's wildly fallacious to assume that every technical flaw in an image is intentional and that the image as presented is exactly what the photographer would have wished that it would be. All you need to do is look at the huge number of threads that crop up asking for help in post processing or "how can I improve this shot?" to see where the reality of the site really is.
I'm not at all arguing with those who seek to see the "art" in every entry, far from it; I have often plead for this myself. But this thread began with a discussion of John's position that it wasn't worth giving a critique if we don't know what the photographer was trying to accomplish, and I find it ironic that those who are "supporting" emotive vs technical critiques are focusing on the "why" of the creation, rather than the "how" of it, and this is exactly what John is/was begging for. Indeed, I've begged for it in the past myself.
I am always delighted to read photographer's notes that explore the "why" of their creative process, and I always find it easier to give a thoughtful and useful critique when the photographer has included such notes. But thus far in my experience with DPC I believe I've learned that the majority of photographers in here are seeking to improve their skills at least as much as they are their "vision", as it were.
Certainly, speaking for myself, I find that the more my skills improve, the better I am able to realize my vision.
Robt. |
|
|
|
10/21/2006 04:33:26 PM · #237 |
I totally echo your feelings about your feelings about photography changing and needing to change in order to grow. The first two photos show technical mastery, but to me they are pretty lifeless and whatever. The second 2 to me are amazing because I feel like you've captured a moment that I can feel. I feel like I'm there, or I know what that feels like, or I want to feel like that.
I think when I first started submitting photos seriously to dpc, it was all about techinical mastery. I learned about exposure, working with digital photos, read all kinds of materials about it, seeing that photos that usually won at that time were technically superb. Now I'm not saying I'm a master at technical photography, anyone can see that, but after a while, shooting just for technical merit or for dpc approval lost its appeal big time. Emotion became very important to me. But that is just for me. I really mostly just enjoy photographs of people, candidly or in some interesting environment. Not portrait photography per se, more towards candid. I want my photos to convey life to people that see them. I want them to feel what I felt when I looked through the lens and saw what I saw. But on the other end of things, I'm sure that some people really enjoy shooting still photos, going for technical merit primarily. Perhaps that's what moves THEM. Just not me at this point. Both sides have their place in photography but are never required because of the subjectivity of it all. |
|
|
|
10/21/2006 06:20:13 PM · #238 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...I find it ironic that those who are "supporting" emotive vs technical critiques are focusing on the "why" of the creation, rather than the "how" of it, and this is exactly what John is/was begging for. |
I'm not sure where this idea came from, but it's not mine. I could really care less about the 'how'.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2006 06:45:46 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't see why anyone needs to make the assumption that if I (or any other critter) chooses to critique the technical aspect of an image then I/we must be trying to impose our own preconceptions on it...
...I think it's wildly fallacious to assume that every technical flaw in an image is intentional and that the image as presented is exactly what the photographer would have wished that it would be. All you need to do is look at the huge number of threads that crop up asking for help in post processing or "how can I improve this shot?" to see where the reality of the site really is...
..thus far in my experience with DPC I believe I've learned that the majority of photographers in here are seeking to improve their skills at least as much as they are their "vision", as it were.
Certainly, speaking for myself, I find that the more my skills improve, the better I am able to realize my vision... |
[Omissions mine]
And I thought, some of us had gone through pains to avoid such assumptions, wildly fallacious or not, so that the 'reality of this site' would have a chance at views which do not perpetuate the status quo.
I, too, am not discounting the merit of skills, as I have repeatedly stated. I'm opposed to splitting them into separate categories, and I, as have others, have tried to show why in the numerous posts preceding yours.
Message edited by author 2006-10-21 18:46:15.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2006 07:05:50 PM · #240 |
This has drifted somewhat, but that's the nature of conversation.
Why should we consider either the 'how' or the 'why'? We should just be assessing the image as presented to us, and reacting to that - and to compound the point, if we react honestly by our own lights, then either a 'technical' or an 'emotive' critique will be just fine. What isn't fine is a formulaic critique.
That disease is the same as that that infests a lot of the photography here - the belief that there is some kind of 'correct' way of doing things, be that shooting photographs or writing about them. You only have to read many of the comments to understand the belief that some photographs can actually be 'wrong'.
Ed
|
|
|
|
10/21/2006 08:00:56 PM · #241 |
Ahh this thread just keeps going and going but it's very interesting though. It's sort of a microcosm of everyday life when you get down to it. It's like seeing a beautiful woman who we fixate on and ignore the average looking one. Nevermind that deep down we prefer to make a life with those who has the inner beauty.
It's no different when we look at photographs or anything else for that matter. The technicals are superficial but they do serve the purpose of attraction something the art alone can't always achieve and so it is ripe for critiquing, IMO. Unless of course the artist wants to be a starving one, who shies away from success or popularity because the very thought of it is repulsive. In which case that check box shouldn't be checked as the critique in that case comes automatically by virtue of the comments it receives (or lack there of) during the challenge.
Message edited by author 2006-10-21 20:03:41. |
|
|
|
10/21/2006 08:15:27 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As an example, one of my friends created a body of photographic work that was intentionally quite out of focus, even to the point that they physically detached the lens from the camera body. To fully appreciate it, the viewer had to let go of the assumption that all photographs necessitate sharp focus. Once that hurdle was overcome, the beauty of the work was quite evident.
|
What a silly idea
This does pre-suppose though, that all of the technical choices in a photo for critique are intentional.
For some that's entirely appropriate - the critique should discuss the success or failure of those choices. But there are plenty of others entered into challenges, which ask for critiques, where the photographer probably or possibly isn't even aware of the choices they are making, or how they could be changed. |
Typically, critiques on DPC have focused on assuming the latter, technical, choices. Usually done without any input from the photographer as to what choices they did conciously make, what they like or dislike about the image or even what settings they used on their camera. Any technical suggestion that I would make in such a critique, would be how to improve the image to make it the way I think it should be . The way I interpret what they are wanting to show and what they are actually trying to achieve may be totally different.
I'm OK with giving this technical kind of assistance as a "critique", but I think that without some input from the photographer, it's likely that my advice will not be helpful and my efforts mostly wasted.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2006 11:12:14 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...I find it ironic that those who are "supporting" emotive vs technical critiques are focusing on the "why" of the creation, rather than the "how" of it, and this is exactly what John is/was begging for. |
I'm not sure where this idea came from, but it's not mine. I could really care less about the 'how'. |
I must not be making myself entirely clear. I think I'm not supporting the presumptive "irony" well enough. In any case, of course not; you are in the "why" camp, not the "how" camp. Your original plea was that photographers supply information to help explore the intentions of the photograph, more or less.
R. |
|
|
|
10/21/2006 11:24:09 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by e301:
This has drifted somewhat, but that's the nature of conversation.
Why should we consider either the 'how' or the 'why'? We should just be assessing the image as presented to us, and reacting to that - and to compound the point, if we react honestly by our own lights, then either a 'technical' or an 'emotive' critique will be just fine. What isn't fine is a formulaic critique.
That disease is the same as that that infests a lot of the photography here - the belief that there is some kind of 'correct' way of doing things, be that shooting photographs or writing about them. You only have to read many of the comments to understand the belief that some photographs can actually be 'wrong'.
Ed |
There is also a disease whereupon I have seen people here put forth ideas as the *ONLY* way of doing things, and that is also wrong.
Why should we consider the how and why? Because for beginning photographers, it can be essential. I was certainly helped out by people considering the how and why when I first started coming here.. and if we never tackle it, many people will continue to wonder why they simply aren't getting any better in the ways they want to.
We need to consider everything. There are all kinds of photography and photographs and all kinds of people that like those photographs. The kind that you obviously like and prefer... *AND* the kind that I've frequently seen you talk down. If someone likes an image, they like it. That's all there is to it. If someone doesn't, they don't.. but as Bear_Music and others have tried to put across.. there is also a set of *fundamentals* that cannot be ignored, and I think that it's important that we continue to try to learn and teach these fundamentals to anyone willing to listen.. not just fall into a trap where the only thing that is worth anything are the photographs that one individual only thinks are worthy of attention
|
|
|
|
10/22/2006 04:42:27 AM · #245 |
If I thought my exhortations would actually have that effect, Glen, then I wouldn't make the argument.
However, that disease of thinking there's only one way of doing things is much more effectively propagated by the truly successful - I mean the measurably successful - photographers here. I mean those at the top of the favourites lists, and the ribbon lists. The statistical success of those images and photographers creates a pressure for other photographers who crave 'success' to imitate that kind of subject matter and approach, rather than to find their own voice.
I 'talk down' certain types of photography only because I'm bored by it. But one has to be careful to admit that that may be a failure of critical understanding on my part, rather than a failure of endeavour of the photographer. Like I say, if I had so much influence ...
Ed |
|
|
|
10/22/2006 06:51:29 AM · #246 |
Originally posted by e301:
If I thought my exhortations would actually have that effect, Glen, then I wouldn't make the argument.
However, that disease of thinking there's only one way of doing things is much more effectively propagated by the truly successful - I mean the measurably successful - photographers here. I mean those at the top of the favourites lists, and the ribbon lists. The statistical success of those images and photographers creates a pressure for other photographers who crave 'success' to imitate that kind of subject matter and approach, rather than to find their own voice.
I 'talk down' certain types of photography only because I'm bored by it. But one has to be careful to admit that that may be a failure of critical understanding on my part, rather than a failure of endeavour of the photographer. Like I say, if I had so much influence ...
Ed |
I think you have more influence than you know.. especially on a site such as this, where you yourself willingly admit that people tend to herd towards the "truly successful" :) It's mass mentality here, and it doesn't take a lot to sway that thinking, and for some reason, certain people seem to be able to do it much easier than others, even when no *intent* is involved.
Anyway, I applaud your efforts, even if I don't fully agree with the message that I, personally, am seeing in them. I do love a good back and forth, and reading this thread has been truly interesting. Just wanted to get my voice in over something that had been chewing at me for a bit.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2006 11:13:17 AM · #247 |
I posted this in a forum here back in July, but I thought this may be a good opportunity to re-post it:
Critique for Dummies
A Practical Guide
By John M. Setzler, Jr.
July 25, 2006
We all love to get feedback on our photos. We post them to various online forums hoping others will find them artistic in some way or another. We take the positive reinforcement as a pat on the back. We use the negative feedback to improve our work. Some people are offended by negative feedback and some use it to their advantage. In this guide, we will discuss how to give critique, as well as how to look at a photograph.
What is a Critique?
Critique comes in many forms, but in a nutshell, it’s the opinion of the giver. A critique is a simple description of the photo based on the viewer’s personality and background. This description could include a lot of different topics, which we will discuss in this guide.
Before we can discuss how to critique a photograph, I think it’s important to know how to look at a photograph. It’s important to try to understand what you see in a photo before you try to give feedback on it.
How to Look at a Photograph
It sounds simple enough, but it’s more complex than you might think. Here’s a breakdown of my own workflow for looking at a photograph. I wish I had some flowcharting software to create a graphic for this, but it’s not really that complex.
Do you like the photo?
This part isn’t usually too complicated to figure out. In most cases, you either like what you see or you don’t. The photo will stimulate you visually, emotionally or maybe even both. The stimulation may be good or bad and that will determine whether or not you like what you see. The photographer’s choice of subject may or may not appeal to you. You may or may not like the way they chose to photograph it. There are a lot of smaller elements of the image that will determine whether or not the image appeals to you. Sorting out these elements is what builds your critique.
What is the subject?
What is the photographer trying to show you in the photo? What inspired the photographer to choose this subject? Does the subject interest you in any particular way? Was the photographer successful in showing you the subject?
Is this photo spontaneous or set up?
It’s very important to make this distinction whenever possible. I usually hold the two types of photos to different standards. A spontaneous photo may have certain qualities that make me look less at certain aspects of the image. When a photographer has complete control of the subject environment, I am less forgiving than when the photographer is working in a spontaneous mode. In a set up environment, I look for lighting and other technical aspects that enhance the subject’s appearance. Technical excellence is important when the photographer has complete control. In a spontaneous environment, I look to see how effectively the photographer portrayed the subject, and if it’s as good as it could be in the given circumstances. I also try to note different circumstances that could produce something stronger. I can’t possibly know everything about those circumstances other than what I can see within the image. This brings us to the topic of assumptions, which we will discuss later.
What is the environment?
The subject of the photo may not fill the entire frame. Is the subject’s environment pleasing? Is it supportive of the subject? Are there distractions in the frame? Are there objects that are competing for attention? In a controlled environment, everything seen in the image should have a purpose, whether it is the subject of the photo, or something supportive of the subject. In an uncontrolled environment, extra items in the field of view should not be competing for attention with the subject. Keep in mind that a photo may have multiple subjects or a group of objects that create the subject.
What’s the mood of the photo?
Does the photo stir your senses? Does the photo make you wonder about something? Does it make you ask yourself questions? Does it inspire you? Does it make you feel good? Does it make you feel somber? Does the photo help you to know the subject?
Now we have established a few important bits of information about the photo we are reviewing. We know whether or not we like what we see. We know what the subject is and what the photographer is trying to show us. We know that the photo is either spontaneous or set up. We have also considered the environment in which the photo was made.
Where do we go from here?
There are four more basic areas of critique to observe after we have reached this point. These areas are creativity, composition, post processing, and technical aspects.
Creativity:
Did the photographer take any creative steps to make this photograph interesting to the viewer? Some elements of creativity may include camera angle or perspective, exposure technique, and effective use of lighting. This aspect of the image is usually where good photographers are separated from great ones. We have all seen photos certain subjects, but a great photographer will show it to us in an inspiring way.
Composition:
Is the image composed in an appealing way? Does the eye come to rest on the subject or a specific area of the image? Your personal understanding of composition will dictate what you can and can’t say about it in a critique.
Post Processing:
Post processing of a photograph is a definite target for critique. This is one area where the photographer has total control of everything. In general, photos branch into two categories where post processing is concerned. There are those where you don’t notice the post processing and those where you do. Post processing is quite subjective. Everyone has his own opinion on how it should be done. In a critique, you might want to discuss the “why” questions. Post processing choices are deliberate ones made by the photographer. There is some reason behind it, or there should be. If you can’t determine the reason or don’t agree with it, it’s a good point for critique.
Technicals:
In my opinion, the technical aspects of a photo, such as depth of field, focus, shutter speeds, and exposure don’t come into play until after the viewer has decided whether or not he likes the photo. In most types of photography, the technical items are not what the photographer is trying to show you. They have presented you with a subject or subjects and their technical choices should be supportive of those subjects as much as possible. Some photographers choose to make the technical aspects of their photo the subject in some cases. These photos have to be treated differently. You should just look at those images and see if you can understand what they are showing you and why they chose to do it.
Assumptions:
Everyone knows the old saying about assumptions. Making an assumption in a critique is simply a bad idea. One of the most common assumption mistakes I see in critiques is when a different view or camera angle is suggested. We have no way of knowing what a photo would look like from a different perspective, so we should never suggest it. Critique what you see. The only assumption you should ever make in a critique is that everything you see is intentional, whether it actually is or not. If you think something you see isn’t intentional, you should critique it as intentional. Tell the photographer that you do or don’t like his choice. If it is actually a mistake, the photographer will know and learn from it.
Who is qualified to critique?
Everyone is qualified to critique. No matter how much or little you know about photography, you can always tell if you like a photo when you look at it. If you aren’t comfortable with certain aspects of a critique, just leave them out and talk about what you know!
How to receive a critique:
Critiques are opinions and nothing more. They are reflections of the people giving them. You should never argue or complain about a critique. You will either agree with it or you won’t. When you post a photo to a public forum for critique, you must be prepared to hear the worst-case scenarios as well as the educated critiques. If you are sensitive about your photos, posting them online is not a good idea. Don’t expect everyone to share your sentiments about any given photo. Photography is supposed to be fun. Don’t let negative critiques change your own opinion of your work. Have a good time.
John Setzler
This is just a reflection of my own workflow when I look at photos.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2006 12:34:16 PM · #248 |
This site is full of very talented people. And some of us who are learning to take photos - some who have reasonable hopes of becoming good photographers, some who have unreasonable hopes, and some who have all but given up hope - find ourselves extremely fortunate to have a forum that causes a large group of talented people to look at our photographs. I have found that many short comments during competitions have really been right on the money. And I have learned what my own weaknesses and strenghts are that: I see light and texture well, but I wouldn't percieve good composition if it were tattooed on my palm.
I have checked the "In-depth critique" button that is the subject of such heated debate here. I did it perhaps a dozen times. And if I did get a critique as a result of doing that, I was never aware of it. Recently I tried to click it. It turned out that I had failed to enter some technical parameter - my recollection was that it was ASA and that my camera's EXIF file does not report ASA - and so I could not get an in-depth critique of my photo.
I hope I can be forgiven for saying what I am thinking but
1) There seems to be a disagreement about how critiques ought to be done and why we do them. This strikes me as being a strange argument. I think almost any measure of 'done badly' would be an improvement over 'not done at all.' Any critique is more useful than no critique. Even some of the most badly phrased comments I have receieved were marginally better than none at all.
2) Any critique is aimed at reinforcing the strengths of a photo and at informing the photographer of its weakensses, and will be of some value. A person who constantly turns in 7.0 + photos will always either see room for improvement in a 5.0 to 6.0 photo or have reason to give encouragement and reinforce the photographer's judgement that a lower scoring photo is actually good. There are, however, very few cases I can think of when the wrong ASA setting has a profound effect on the final outcome of a photo. Nor am I sure I understand how I would learn to compose photos better if my camera did report the ASA number.
3) I think that if one is the NYT photo critic and hundreds of thousands of readers depend entirely on you to form an opinion of a photo, then knowing 'why' might be of critical importance and one may not wish to guess from the content of the photograph. But it seems a little unlikely to me that a single critique will make or break the reputation of a photographer here.
4) As Gordon pointed out very graphically, sometimes photos are technically flawless but lifeless. Sometimes they are full of life, but technically flawed. I think the "DPC Look" tends to promote the former and exclude the latter. And if one were looking to improve the CC process, I could imagine having a goal of finding the strengths in a photo and noting its weaknesses, even when those strenghts and weaknesses have nothing to do with technique. What one finds in a photo is a matter of judgement, of course, and there is no right or wrong. But learning how other people react to a work of art can sometimes help a learning photographer communicate better.
I enjoyed JMSetzler's Practical Guide to Critiquing a Photo, and hope to use it in judging my own photos and those I comment on here. In the mean time, I have the hope that the CC cue gets short and that one day I will be able to check the box and enjoy so much as a cursory two or three word CC critique. Or am I mistaken about the whole thing? Are CC comments only for those who have already earned a ribbon?
|
|
|
|
10/22/2006 01:30:38 PM · #249 |
I still maintain two points:
1. Doing a quality critique represents a significant amount of effort on the part of the person giving the critique.
2. In light of that, the very least someone who is requesting a critique should do, especially if they are interested in comments about the technical execution of their image, is to provide some comments about what they were trying to do and how they tried doing it.
I certainly don't mean that every photograph requires a lengthy thesis statement. It could be something as simple as: "I wanted to make a sharp macro of a bee visiting this flower. I used my +10 diopter-ma-bob, had my camera on a tripod and here's the exif from my camera".
Is the extra 30 seconds of typing really too much to require from the photographer before allowing them ask for a critique that will take many times that long to do well?
|
|
|
|
10/22/2006 03:12:29 PM · #250 |
| While I can pretty much agree with John's suggested guidelines, I'd also like to point out that we have an official site Tutorial which covers many of the same points. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 05/23/2025 07:40:19 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/23/2025 07:40:19 AM EDT.
|
