Critiques, how do you look at a photograph??

Coming from someone who has minimal training in photography I can say that I do look at a photograph in terms of how it makes me "feel" (as HvR would say, with my obsessions in mind - or perhaps at the back of my mind)

When i see a photo that I like, I have my few years of technical background to fall back on in my response - thus I can comment about certain aspects, however I typically respond with my feelings in mind as it's hard for me to quantify with more advanced photographic terms. I don't "see" those aspects because I haven't learned what to look for in those ways.

I whole heartedly agree that when I see a subject I am not particularly fond of, I'll be more apt to skip over responding however great the photo may be compositionally, in exposure, etc.

I have no doubt as I embark on my continued education I will start to "see" a broaded range of photographic aspects that I don't currently see - and therefore I'll be able to critique photos with these new terms in my head.
 
lol Traveller we are all talking about the same thing on wildly different scales. If you can't see the baby through the motion blur then true that is a flaw of technique ;)
 
As a person with absolutely NO formation in the field of visual arts at all, the only approach I CAN take at someone else's photography is my very own purely emotional one.

I have started to LOOK at photos from very early on, and I have developed a (at first subconscious) liking for certain subjects/themes/motifs and a kind of indifference towards others. For example: car photography will never interest me that much since I am not interested in cars too much in my everyday life, either. My car has to run when I want it to and not cause me any trouble and that's about it, which accounts for the fact that I would never spend so very much time with a car photo.

Though you can learn to look and appreciate / not appreciate things in ANY photo, even in those that do not show a subject with which you instantly feel "at home". In the course of time, by looking, and reading, and looking more and reading more, you can develop a certain "eye" and also see when a car photo (that is speaking about me now) is more pleasing than the next car photo.

But I feel that to look and learn HOW to look also means that you have to learn a lot about YOURSELF, for unless you can really say (to yourself) what you like and what you don't like that much, you can't really see it, I think.

To become more concrete: for quite some time I had thought that modern architecture would not interest me in the least, until I found out that I like patterns and appreciate the repetition of patterns very much. Patterns combined with repeating colours are also quite fascinating. And after finding out that (new to me at first!) aspect about myself and my own likings, I found out that modern architecture often offers just that! And I began to look at modern buildings differently. Now I look at them and kind of "frame them" in front of my inner eye and imagine what a photo of that detail, or that part with a wide open aperture might look like in a photo etc --- and after I have learned that aspect about myself, I am now also looking at other photographers' photos of modern buildings differently and appreciate them more.

I like MANY aspects in photos, not just patterns or areas of colour, or the colour green (!) ;) - but it takes time to get to know oneself well enough to also be able to DETERMINE what we like and what we don't like. So (through TPF, mind!) I found out that crooked angles - for example - are not my cup of tea. I look at other people's pics with deliberately crooked angles and think "Hey, inventive!" or "Creative", but it just isn't my thing. If I tried to copy that, my photos would look forced. It isn't me. And therefore it would never occur to me to express myself in that manner.

And - I fear I don't look at the crooked photos as closely as they might merit a look just because that element is not "my thing"...
 
Critiquing is not limited by your capabilities, I've read critique books, and learned bit by bit how to look, in the end it's all up to me, my character, my personal tastes, but at least I've learned things that changed the way I see it forever. It makes the difference, in a way that I actually expect that people are more informed to criticize photos based on the fact that it is some sort of visual art (even if you are not informed, LaFoto's point is valid), but not the way they would look at a photoshop wallpaper. Or based on what they are capable of.

Hertz, we can argue over what terms we should use forever, but those rules are meant to be taken into consideration if you wanna do it at least in a conventional way, we are similar and hence, there are things we can agree on. But we have some differences, you can break those rules, and it would be appreciated by a few probably, it's a matter of taste. At least that's the way I see it.

I find this discussion very informative, and interesting. Thank you for responding...
 
Critiquing is VERY much limited to your capabilities, knowledge, experience.
Not to mention you need to see and have the phyisical photograph in front of you to begin with, fail to have the knowledge, capability and experience and you have the potential to harm an aspiring artist rather than help.

I have responded to this type of question before so I will quote some of those:

"photographers do not give feedback on work. Teachers do that, and by teacher I don't necessarily mean an academic teacher.
When someone shows me work who I have not taught I only say, " Thank you."

It takes a lot of energy to comment on work in a way that is useful."

Much of what Hertz has expressed here I agree with so I see no need to add more to that, especially on the "rules."
Other than:

“Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk.” Edward Weston
 
“Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk.” Edward Weston
:cheer:
 
Hertz, we can argue over what terms we should use forever, but those rules are meant to be taken into consideration if you wanna do it at least in a conventional way, we are similar and hence, there are things we can agree on. But we have some differences, you can break those rules, and it would be appreciated by a few probably, it's a matter of taste.

It's not a matter of 'terms' but of the meaning of words.
A 'rule' is, strictly speaking, a statement of what is allowed. This, by definition, means that there are also things which are not allowed.
If you break a 'rule' in Photography, who decides that a 'rule' has been broken and what is your punishment?
The answer is that nothing happens and no-one will probably notice.
As I have already said, a 'rule' that can be bent, broken or ignored at will with no consequences is in no sense of the word a rule. It is just a guidline or a convention. And conventions are set by the tastes of the day.
The bottom line is that an image either works or it doesn't - that is, it either does or doesn't do what the photographer intended. And the viewer either likes it or he doesn't.
If you can take a picture that does what it is supposed to and viewers like whilst conforming to the conventions of the day, you can earn a living.
But if you can take a picture that does what you want and viewers like whilst going outside the coneventions - then it is probably Art ;)
 
I see an image with the same physical receptors as Hertz.... I filter it through a totally different set of experiences to come up with what I actually percieve the image to be. I give my opinion based on my own experiences and my own tastes. it is then my own opinion not one from a book. That is, right or wrong, how I look at an image to critique. Others do it differently and they should.

I don't think any photographer really wants to know all the tiny things he has done wrong. I think he wants to know what you think is the major flaw a quick fix for the image. When it gets down to the hundredth Monkey's critique he will have had about everything there is to say said. I don't think there is any need in one person going on and on about an image.

It's like this thread. What I have said was probably said several times, I just couldn't weed through all the excess verbage to find it.

Ps... that Weston quote says a hell of a lot more than you think.
 
I take a different approach than a lot of people do... not necessarily one that is better, or worse, just different.

When I look at pictures, I am most concerned about what they are saying... whether it is a portrait, a critter, a landscape or whatever... I look to see what the picture says to me.

If it is a portrait of "Jessica", then it should scream "Jessica" at me... it should capture the essence of who she is, and not just what her face looks like. I don't care about noise, color, whether it was taken with a digital camera or any of the other peripheral stuff per-say, it just needs to speak to me about the subject. Yes, I know it sounds like I am blowing off quailty, and I don't really do that... generally, photos need to be properly exposed, sharp where they are supposed to be, etc... but... I think way too many times people pay attention to stuff like digital noise or film grain, when it is not important to the story that the picture tells.

But that's just me.

If I don't like a picture, I won't comment on it unless asked specifically. If somebody says "How would you crop this, or is the skin tone too red" or stuff like that I will give my opinion, but that is it. If I like a shot, I will say so.

I have taken a lot of pictures, and every post I put my website address so y'all can see whether I am actually good enough to offer advice. I will leave it for you to decide whether I know my stuff by looking at my work. I really like it when my fellow forum mates do the same, because some of your people are astoundingly good and I really enjoy looking at your work. I totally encourage people who offer critiques to post their own work where it is easy to find, and post enough images so that we all can get a good idea of whether the person doing the critiques knows what he/she is talking about.

There are a few around here that seem to just criticize. I haven't actually seen any pictures they take... they say it is OK to edit their pictures, and then don't actually post any. The opinion of these folks should be taken with an HUGE grain of salt.
 
Along the same lines as sabbath999 ... to moi, phototgraphy is all about communications ... what is the image saying to me. Sometimes the voice is soft ... sometimes it is loud ... sometimes a photo will grab me by the neck and forces me to look ... often the photo is subtle ... is the image elementary ... sophisticated ... et cetera.

Photo's sorta talk to me on different levels ... some chat, some give speeches, some sing and some speak in tongues. Those that are mute ... I just keep on walking.

As to rules ... one of my first photo instructors stated that if all else fails ... then try Rule-of-Thirds. That is my approach ... when all else fails then try shooting with the "rules" of exposure and composition.

As to image quality ... to me the greater the image impact the greater the "lack of quality" the image can absorb. For me, a typical landscape needs high IQ, while the Ed Adams' shot of The Vietnamese General executing a VC suspect on a Saigon street can get by with grain and less than opitimum composition, focus and exposure because of the high impact.

Gary
 
I see an image with the same physical receptors as Hertz.... I filter it through a totally different set of experiences to come up with what I actually percieve the image to be.

Words again. I'm going to go deeper here so try to keep up.
We perceive the same things in the same way.
Where we differ is in what responses these perceptions trigger.
When we look at an image we do not just look with our eyes but with our emotions and our memory and it is this which colours our experience.
If you look at a picture of your mother you do not just see the physical likeness, you colour it with all the memories you have of her and all the emotions you have felt towards her.
If you look at a picture of someone else's mother - someone you have never met - all of these memories and emotions are missing and so you have a completely different experience.
This is an extreme example but the essence of it is true for every image we look at.
If you see a picture of a horse and you like horses you will experience the image in a different way to that of something you don't like.
Likewise, we can look at other people's images far more clinically and critically than we usual can look at our own.
This is because when we look at an image we have taken we do not just see the image but we remember all of the things that we associate with taking that picture. That is to say, we see more in one of our images than someone else would who was not there when the picture was taken.
There are a lot of ramifications in this so think about it.
 
Hertz rules in photography are there for a reason, but surely they are not rules in a general sense, it's just a word we use to associate with generalizations about taking photos.

The rule of thirds exists because, MOST of the time, a shot looks better when the photograph follows the form of the thirds in the picture. It's not a steadfast "rule" and everyone here knows that. In fact, in portraits, it's quite normal to break this "rule".

Look even deeper and realize why we, or anyone, enjoys photography... it's about capturing emotion or feeling. Sometimes that's capturing the beauty of someone, or some PLACE, but other times it's about capturing the simpleness of country life, the hustle of city life, or the interesting architecture of a building, or capturing the emotion in a little girl at a funeral... all of these things have specific reactions in different people, but the "RULES" are in place to help us achieve the goal of tugging on the emotion.

Of course we all "physically" see everything the same, or at least closely(my vision is actually really bad), but we certainly use our experiences/emotions to percieve them differently. I agree.
 
O and to me grain/noise are just additional compnents. IF they distract, get rid of them, if they help, add them in!
 
Hertz rules in photography are there for a reason, but surely they are not rules in a general sense, it's just a word we use to associate with generalizations about taking photos.

Surely that is what Hertz was saying here??
Hertz van Rental said:
As I have already said, a 'rule' that can be bent, broken or ignored at will with no consequences is in no sense of the word a rule. It is just a guidline or a convention. And conventions are set by the tastes of the day.

I suppose if one's feeling particularly snarky this question can simply be answered with... "My eyes."
The truth is, like has already been stated we see first with our eyes and then through: our hearts, our prejudices, our likes and dislikes, our upbringing...etc
 
In the words of my daughter when she was 16 and I was trying to get her to wear nicer clothes to school... Whatever... lol

Hertz you are right but the experiences are different so we percieve it differently.,. It speaks differently to each of us. I can forgive somethings that drive others crazy.

Grain is inherant in all film.... You use what you have in a way that makes the best of it's features including grain. That's my critique on that image.

Ps I post shots and you should still take my critique with a large grain of salt.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top