Video on how to critique photos?

[Jesse17]

Currently my photography club is not critiquing any photos at the meetings, just sharing "Here's a photo I took, here's another photo I took..." Even our photo 'contest' of the month is getting picked without any judging criteria. Just with members trying to remember which photo they 'liked' the best.
I was charged with finding a YouTube video for the club's meeting tomorrow night in lieu of a speaker, and agreed to find one on how to judge a photo, or how to give constructive critique. I'm also making a judging 'guide' sheet for the member to use that will help them keep track of which photos they saw and remind them of the different aspects to keep in mind when judging a photo (lighting, technical elements, composition, etc).

However, I can't find anything on YouTube except videos of people critiquing photos themselves. I need a video of someone explaining how and what to look for, and how to to constructively relay that info to the photography without criticizing.

If anyone knows of a good video like that, I'd be extremely grateful. THANKS!

 

[tirediron]

You might as well look for videos on how to breed unicorns! Seriously, analytical critique is not something that you can learn from a YouTube video. It requires a knowledge of composition, lighting, all of the technical aspects of photography, as well as experience in what is popular. If you're in an urban area, why not reach out to another, larger/more established club. Most clubs that have been around for a while have at least a few genuine experts, and chances are someone would be willing to come out and help you.

 

[astroNikon]

Just start critiquing what you do and don't like about a photo.
And as mentioned above the more you learn about composition, lighting, art, etc the more you'll be able to critique and offer constructive criticism.

 

[Designer]

Try these:

how to critique photographs - YouTube

 

[The_Traveler]

Try these:

how to critique photographs - YouTube

I listened to a couple of those and the voices just put me to sleep and the critique sort of mechanically inclined.

I agree with tirediron.

You might as well look for videos on how to breed unicorns! Seriously, analytical critique is not something that you can learn from a YouTube video. It requires a knowledge of composition, lighting, all of the technical aspects of photography, as well as experience in what is popular.

I wrote this 3 or 4 years ago for a local camera group
____________________________________________________________________________
It's not enough to say you like it - an introduction to giving critique

Lewis Lorton, ([email protected])

Very few pictures presented for critique in the photo communities or on the web are meant simply to convey detail or information, as does a driver’s license photo or a picture of how to assemble some mechanism.

Pictures presented for critique generally are intended to have visual impact but, more than that, to convey a feeling, an impression, an emotion or an intellectual concept. The photographer uses all the technical and compositional tools at her or his command to achieve that. A critique should explore what the photographer did and how well it was done; in other words how well did the photograph communicate and why it succeeded or failed.

A critique has two benefits; the intended one is to allow the photographer to see how his/her image is seen by others’ eyes - eyes that are unclouded by any emotional attachment to the image. The second benefit is that every critique can be a learning experience for the critic who sharpens his/her own eye by disentangling the many components of a photograph and weighing each of these to understand the photograph’s strengths, weaknesses and ultimate success.

How is this ‘critique’ actually done?

The feeling that the picture is great, good, mediocre or terrible is a visceral, emotional response; we need to be able to describe why we have that response. To understand that visceral response, the critic asks him/herself questions and the responses build the critique. The questions are meant to separate out the various components of a picture into manageable quantities so each of us can understand in some way why we feel as we do about the picture. The critic needs to get as close as possible to picking out the qualities that make up the worth of each picture in his or her own eyes.

Some potential questions:

• What feelings or impressions come from the picture?Are these feeling congruent with the content or subject?
• Are there one or more centers of visual interest?
• Is(are) the center(s) of interest - the main subject(s) - well placed within the frame and does the placement relate well to the rest of the content so that the viewer’s eye is drawn to, rather than away?
• Is there excess space that pulls the eye away and drains any tension or drama from the picture?
• Is there enough space so that nothing feels cramped or cut off?
• Are there geometric issues? e.g. are the horizontals and vertical correct, and is that important?
• Is the composition appropriate for the content?
• Is the color or tonality appropriate for the content? Saturation or lack of it? Correct hues, white balance?
• Does the color make the point that the photographer wants?
• Is the sharpness or lack of sharpness appropriate?
• Is everything that should be in focus and sharp, actually so?
• In the reverse, is there so much depth of field, that attention is drawn away from the real object of interest?
• Are there individual small defects - points of motion, dirt on the lens/sensor, out-of-focus spots that hurt the image, unduly bright areas that draw the eye?
  

Note that these critique points deal at a fairly low level, almost mechanical.
At a slightly higher level, is the intent of the photo to present something unique or is it really a genre photo, like a head shot.
If it is meant to be unique, is it?
Beyond the mechanical issues, is the photo interesting, does the content draw the viewer in?
Is the photo really essentially a 'copy' of something we've all seen. Does it present a familiar subject in a way that is interesting, enlightening or unique?

More questions may occur to you to add to your concept of each image; your summation should be - in your opinion, why is this picture good/bad/indifferent and could the photographer have done something differently or better to increase the impact of the picture?

First, respond to the picture as presented without suggestions for different angles, etc.
If the environment is friendly and the photographer is willing to listen, then suggest possible technical or technique changes that, in your opinion, might improve the picture.

Remember that wonderful, successful pictures may have many small defects and still be great.
Conversely, a technically perfect picture may be completely uninteresting. Photography, as all arts are, is clearly a realm where the whole may not be equal to the sum of the parts.

 

[Jesse17]

Thanks, Traveler. I agree about the YouTube videos on that list. I had already tried searching youtube for that, and many more related search terms, but 99% of the videos are just videos of someone giving critique, not explaining what to look for.

I plan on creating a score sheet/guide (spreadsheet) for the members to use that will give them a place to write the photos in the monthly contest at the top, and have categories to score down the side (ie. Composition, Interesting, technically correct, creative, proper lighting, etc) Then they can just add up the scores for each photo to pick a winner.

It still won't provide any feedback to the contestants, but right now I'm just trying to get the members thinking about the different aspects to consider when judging a photo. I don't think they have to be experts to do it, because even an expert is still judging on whether or not he thinks a certain aspect, works for in their opinion, for a particular photo. The idea is just to get the members eased into the idea of giving/receiving feedback instead of just sharing photos they took.

 

[dennybeall]

The Kelby one from 2013 is good but is from the standpoint of professional photographers looking for shots that will sell. Not a bad thing.

 

[The_Traveler]

A good judge will start with something like: "I don't think this has as much impact as it could" and then go on to point out the issues that distract him/her from total appreciation.
There are two points subsumed in that: A judge doesn't have to like the content or the image, he/she just has to understand if it works, and
images can have minor distractions or errors and still be good or great.

IMO, the great images have an impact that completely overhelm any tiny technical 'flaws' and technically perfect images can be really boring.

 

[Designer]

The idea is just to get the members eased into the idea of giving/receiving feedback instead of just sharing photos they took.

I applaud your intentions, here, and just want to tell you that this may take some real time and effort. You will find that some members will take to it right away, and others will obstinately refuse. Just do the best you can. Eventually, most members will get the idea.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Maybe consider related topics like composition (although searching that topic in photography seems to bring up a lot of junk; searching elements of composition in art should bring up some decent resources).

On YouTube try art criticism, analysis of artwork, how to read paintings, etc. although it may bring up lectures/presentations from classes that might be more than you want to get into. Museums have resources and I haven't seen many videos but the Louvre has some videos on elements of art. Site hors ligne | Musée du Louvre | Paris

There are BBC Master Photographers videos on YouTube which might be worth a look as an interesting side topic (why are they considered masters? what is it about their photos that are significant? etc.).

 

[Rye]

This sums up the method I was taught in most of my art classes in college. When a student put forth little to no effort on something this is also how I felt about having to critique their work. OK and I admit it's sometimes how I felt about my own work.

Surprisingly when I showed it to my photography professor she laughed until she cried.

 

[Overread]

I think if you try to build a "numbers" sheet you'll fail.

Because what you're identifying is that most people are voting for what they like above all else; which means most will start to vote on the numbers sheet with the intention of making the numbers balance to allow what they want to win to win. Whilst all might not do this some will. I also think its trying to boil things down to the technical correctness just a little too much for the good of artistry. Which is not to say that technical achievement and strive toward perfection are not good things; but that most people dislike the notion of boiling all things down to such elements - especially as most people have a very limited understanding of technical theory and thus their scope of judging based upon such is very limited; thus giving the notion that technicalities are highly limiting.



Instead I would move away from competitions and voting and instead focus upon the fact that your local group is very hobby level. And that's not a bad thing; enjoyment of a hobby for the hobby's sake alone is a good and positive thing and something many social groups can forget and overlook.

However I think also you want to raise the game; to educate and help the group further their own skill. To my mind that means instead of looking at critique of each others you need to look at:

1) Critique of the self - teach them how to start evaluation of their own photography (check my link on how to get feedback in my signature for some ideas).

2) Start to build a series of lectures/classes/themes (competition) which link together with an aim to ward teaching the group improved skills. This is key; if you raise the understanding and skill level then things like "voting" and competitions will start to fall more neatly into place*.

The reason people are just voting with their gut is because that's all they know; so instead focus upon teaching theory and expanding their horizons. It's far more beneficial to the group; though you should expect that you might find you end up doing this with a subgroup or groups to better focus such learning and to also break up some of the skill groups (you will have some who know lots and some who hardly know anything - whilst both can be entertained by a talk each group has its own requirements).

Also get some guest speakers in - there's some that do the rounds of photo clubs so network with other clubs and start to tap into that. By getting guests in you bring a fresh face and a talk on something that isn't a lesson or a competition. You might even get some visiting judges to not just judge but to talk about how they view a photo and how they take it apart to decide upon its merits and failings.


*although you will never remove the politics angle fully; though blind submissions help

 

[Jesse17]

Thanks Overread, all good advice.

They will still have the option of voting with their gut, the judging guides will just be a tool they can use that will hopefully get them to think about different aspects. They won't have to turn them in. It will just give them a easy way to keep track of the photos they saw and what they liked about them, if they choose to use it.

We're in a rural area with a LONG ways between other clubs/towns. So it's hard to get guest speakers, but we're trying. We've had a couple, and we're looking at filling in with some short YouTubes followed by discussion. We have a couple knowledgeable members who can answer questions during discussion, but we don't want to make them be the guest speaker every month.

But I like your thinking. Back off on the feedback and concentrate on the education and the feedback will show up on it's own.

 

[Overread]

Yep it also means that the club isn't revolving around the competitions as much but rather the photography. A strong competitive angle on a club can work but it can also drive many people out; especially those newer or less skilled who "never win". As whilst taking part is the spirit of things its demoralising to always score low and to see the "same people" always winning or even the same kinds of photo (certain themes tend to be more popular in general compared to others). So by focusing on education and general photography you aim to provide content for all; aim to improve the quality and skill of the group and their overall understanding.

 

[The_Traveler]

Again, I agree wholeheartedly with Overread.
I belong to a club that was formed specifically to get away from the competitiveness of the original group. This club does lots of excursions, many exhibitions, many external speakers and a second meeting every month that focuses on the the learning of photography and critique.
I belonged to a club that was fixated on competitions and that did indeed drive away new members; this club is really foundering.