How to critique a photograph

[Hertz van Rental]

Anyone can give a crit because it is nothing more than a personal opinion.
This means that any crit is a valid crit.
But just because something is valid it does not mean that it is of value.
Opinions are often rooted in ignorance or misunderstanding thus an opinion based on inaccurate knowledge is not of much value.
For example: a person knows nothing of Physics. Instead they believe in magic pixies. You ask them why the sky is blue and they tell you that it is because the magic pixies paint it that colour.
This does not help you with your question but it does tell you that the person you have asked is probably certifiable.
The same holds true for photographic criticism.
If you ask for an opinion you may get lots but much of it may be of no use as the person giving it may know less about Photography than you do. Therefore people asking for criticism need to apply their own critical faculties to the answers they get.
If a response helps you with a problem then that response is of value.
If a response does not help you with a problem then that response has no value.
When you are starting out in Photography you will find that almost all crits have at least some value to you.
As you improve and progress then you will find that fewer and fewer people can help you. But by that time you have generally developed the ability to know who those people are.


Note: In this wonderful digital age one should try to avoid making comments on exposure and contrast.
You view the image on your monitor and they view it on theirs.
It may look fine on one but not the other.
This is because people rarely calibrate their computer monitors and very rarely have high quality monitors.
When you comment on what you see in terms of 'exposure' and 'contrast' you are often only commenting on the quality of reproduction on your monitor.
And even when you do calibrate your monitor and it is of good quality there are other factors which affect what you see.
For example: I use Macintosh. Their monitors use a higher Gamma setting that the average PC. Therefore images I adjust using my set up will tend to look too dark with poor contrast on a PC.
And this is quite apart from all the compression and expansion (often with a degree of information loss) that digital images are subject to when passed around the Interweb.

 

[ksmattfish]

Here's a suggested framework for critiques. I think of it as being Henry James' method.

What is the perceived intent? (This needs to be answered before proceeding)

Has the intent been realised?

Was it worth it?

This gets the technical stuff into the background and reduces the influence of the reviewers' personal preferences. It does, however, assume intentionalism*.

I agree. Posting a photo with little or no explanation, and having people post what they think is not a critique. I can tell people if I like their photo or not, and what I'd do (my taste) based on my assumptions (which are probably mostly wrong). To give a critique I need to understand what the artist was trying to achieve. Even if it's as simple as "I was trying to take a pretty picture", although the more vague the intent, or the less I understand it, the more harsh my critique is likely to be. If all I've got to judge it on is how it compares to my taste then basically I'm telling you how I would have done it. I don't think that's a critique.

I'll take Skieur's quote in the OP a step further. Even people completely uninterested in photography are capable of looking at a photograph, assessing whether they like it or not, whether it would be popular with the masses, and if it moves them enough they can explain in detail why they like it without ever once referring to f/stop or process. Almost all human beings are well trained in seeing. They may not have the technical vocabulary, but they've been looking at photographs and the world all their lives. I don't ask photographers for critiques except for a few close friends. I know what the camera club dogma is. I want to hear what painters, sculptors, chefs, gardeners, knitters, dancers, and birdwatchers think.

Another issue is the relative anonymity of those giving the critique. Would you stand on a street corner asking passers by what they thought of your photos? Would that be of much use? You need to know or know about the people giving the critique to judge it's value.

 

[Alpha]

I believe we put too much faith in formal critiques for their formality, because we think it gives them creedence. That is, we tend to think that provided a critique follows these formal guidelines that it is good, or appropriate, or "valid," none of which are necessarily true.

 

[abraxas]

...

Lately, though, I've decided that I should make more of an effort to give constructive criticism because maybe by giving it I'll start seeing more of where my criticism falls short and I think I can learn a lot that way. Even if reading my comments will make some people roll their eyes But I thought I might as well ask directly too: what "rules" do you use? There's the obvious stuff such as proper framing etc. (I've been reading books too!), but what's everyone looking for?

I think that if you do not assume that everyone here is looking for a 'critique', and offer one when it is requested with the post, then pretty much anything goes.

I also think that if you offer a criticism, then have somewhat of a tough skin, and be prepared to take criticism of your opinion.

 

[rubbertree]

Lately, though, I've decided that I should make more of an effort to give constructive criticism because maybe by giving it I'll start seeing more of where my criticism falls short and I think I can learn a lot that way.

Remember thought that the person that posted the picture is looking to learn from the critique. If the critique you give has incorrect information in it, sure, YOU might learn from it (that is if others chime in to tell you where you went wrong with your critique) but that does not help the poster out at all. I think an important point here is that the person who posted the picture needs experienced information, not a newbie taking a shot at it. You can always look at the pictures, critique it in your head and follow the post to see if what you thought is the same thing as what others think. You will still learn that way.

I'm not picking on you per say, but one thing that irks me is when someone posts a picture for critique and time and time again their are replies from someone that says, "I think XYZ about this picture but then again, what do I know, I'm just a noob." I think that is unfair to the poster who is trying to learn. If you are going to give a critique, then know what you are talking about.

 

[manaheim]

^^^ yeah, but whose to say if they're right or wrong? Technical issues aside, there isn't a right or wrong in photography or any art form really.

 

[rubbertree]

absolutely true. My point was more that it's not fair of a noob to take someone else's opportunity and use it as their own opportunity.

 

[Bifurcator]

I came across this post in the "Are photographers snobs" thread (sorry to bring it up again) and the opinion Skieur voices in it is actually the reason that I've avoided posting much cc in the past.

Probably a wrong conclusion. There seem to be three basic kinds of image posts on this site. One is in search of honest critique although how they handle it varies. Two is the sign-my-year-book style where they just seem to want others to see the photos - it's fun to share stuff (especially in-line images on a site like this) and that's mostly what they seem to be after. And three is the informative documenting image - these seem not to be about the photograph but rather the subject for whatever reasons.

All of these (and whatever other's I didn't think of) seem to be perfectly acceptable to the vast majority here. Where conflict comes in is where the communication isn't clear. The user wants #1 but gets #2, becomes bored and leaves. The User wants #2 but gets #1 and becomes offended. I guess it's wise to state with the photo what we're looking for and why we posted the image.

I kind of got the feeling that many people share this opinion and figured there wasn't any point in me giving me two cents on pictures.

As a critic? Nah, most of us who have sat there with a stack of prints or scrolled through 20 or 30 images in a thread know very well that to critique an image is a totally different talent than being able to take good photographs. The person who can take good photographs MAY be additionally capable of offering possible solutions - but that again is separate from the critique and both are useful to the person in category #1.

Lately, though, I've decided that I should make more of an effort to give constructive criticism because maybe by giving it I'll start seeing more of where my criticism falls short and I think I can learn a lot that way. Even if reading my comments will make some people roll their eyes

Now you're thinking right. (IMO)

But I thought I might as well ask directly too: what "rules" do you use? There's the obvious stuff such as proper framing etc. (I've been reading books too!), but what's everyone looking for?

I think my rules are unique. I wait for a thread to sink way down on the list or over to page two or three, while maintaining zero replies. I'll then "critique" the image effectively bumping the thread at the same time. The critique I offer is based on where I fit the intent into my 1, 2, or 3 above.

If it's #1 I try to consider their experience level and then type sentences I would feel comfortable saying out loud if they were sitting next to me. Only the photographer can determine if it's valid or not after the crit is given but if they are smart they will realize that at least one person sees it in the stated way.

The idea that a person often learns the most from the harshest crits is true but I don't like to do that very often unless it's an individual I think isn't learning anything, honestly wants to, but has an ego that is getting in the way. I probably don't pay close enough attention to notice that combination very often so it works out pretty good.

 

[skieur]

Well, since it is my quote at the beginning, I should answer the question. I should emphasize that this is not my personal opinion. This is how it is done in the competition circuit of judging high level enthusiast and professional competitions. Whether you like it or not, this is how it is.

Formal, professional critique is divided into 2 sections:with detailed comments on technique and composition.

Technique includes all the technical aspects of the shot and the use of ISO, aperture, shutterspeed, lenses, filters, depth of field, tripod, flash, colour temperature, reflectors, etc. to get a shot with visual impact.

Composition involves all the artistic aspects of framing: rule of thirds, use of line, curves, shape, colour, lighting, shadows, paths, posing, etc.

Some caveats should be mentioned. The photo must stand on its own as a success or failure. It does not matter what the photographer was trying to do. From the strictly viewer point of view the question is: Did he\she succeed?.

Personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant. Does the photo have the level of technique, composition, and visual impact and interest to make it an outstanding, very good, good, or competent photo?

Lastly, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PLAIN, CLEAR, LANGUAGE is used. Diplomacy and tact is NOT USED NOR SHOULD IT BE EXPECTED in professional and top level critique.

Again, whether you agree or disagree is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. That is what CRITIQUE is all about.

skieur

 

[reg]

And these "sign my yearbook" as Bi calls it photos, belong in Just for Fun IMO. Not even the "Beginners" forum, because I certainly don't look at your crappy snapshots all day for my health.

Diplomacy and tact is NOT USED NOR SHOULD IT BE EXPECTED in professional and top level critique.

Again, whether you agree or disagree is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. That is what CRITIQUE is all about.

 

[skieur]

And these "sign my yearbook" as Bi calls it photos, belong in Just for Fun IMO. Not even the "Beginners" forum, because I certainly don't look at your crappy snapshots all day for my health.

How about a coherent, understandable response?

skieur

 

[Mike_E]

Kids, what cha gonna do.

 

[JC1220]

Anyone else humming the theme to Weeds?

 

[manaheim]

Well, since it is my quote at the beginning, I should answer the question. I should emphasize that this is not my personal opinion. This is how it is done in the competition circuit of judging high level enthusiast and professional competitions. Whether you like it or not, this is how it is.

Formal, professional critique is divided into 2 sections:with detailed comments on technique and composition.

Technique includes all the technical aspects of the shot and the use of ISO, aperture, shutterspeed, lenses, filters, depth of field, tripod, flash, colour temperature, reflectors, etc. to get a shot with visual impact.

Composition involves all the artistic aspects of framing: rule of thirds, use of line, curves, shape, colour, lighting, shadows, paths, posing, etc.

Some caveats should be mentioned. The photo must stand on its own as a success or failure. It does not matter what the photographer was trying to do. From the strictly viewer point of view the question is: Did he\she succeed?.

Personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant. Does the photo have the level of technique, composition, and visual impact and interest to make it an outstanding, very good, good, or competent photo?

Lastly, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PLAIN, CLEAR, LANGUAGE is used. Diplomacy and tact is NOT USED NOR SHOULD IT BE EXPECTED in professional and top level critique.

Again, whether you agree or disagree is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. That is what CRITIQUE is all about.

skieur

I love this. I wish we could see more of it here. Direct and to the point. Some folks get really hurt by it though. C'est la vie.

 

[Fox Paw]

"Personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant. Does the photo have the level of technique, composition, and visual impact and interest to make it an outstanding, very good, good, or competent photo?"

No offense, but that is the most misguided way of approaching a creative act that I can imagine, and I couldn't care less what the verdict of those who approach it that way might be. If that's the approach, you could program a computer to analyze Picasso, Keats or Bach. Personal likes and dislikes--i.e., subjective responses to an act of creativity--are what it's all about. We're humans, not machines. I've seen photos posted here that are technically deficient but creative and inspired. They beat the bejesus out of some perfect but safe and boring photos.

While I'm dissenting, I'll go back to another post: I don't think it matters what the creator intended when you perceive a creative act. It has to stand on its own feet and if it requires an explanation, or even a title, it's lacking something.

Disclaimer: as strongly as I feel about these things, my opinions are only that.