Critiquing and Judging

[pgriz]

Yes, lets beat this hoss some more. I think it twitched the last time. :mrgreen:

As part of my own reading on various items that interest me, I came across (or had it pointed out to me - don't really remember), an essay on judging by Robert A. Baron, which can be found on his web site here: Problems in Judging Amateur Photography Competitions -- Robert A. Baron. I think he addresses many of the things we wrestle with when we try to critique an image, and determine how much (if any) weight we should give the formal rules of composition and photography. I may or may not fully buy his arguements, but the piece he wrote is worth reflecting on.

 

[amolitor]

Camera Club "rules" are a hopeless mess. As Baron points out, they have essentially nothing to do with.. anything.

Actual composition is a teachable thing, but it is kind of squishy and a little hard to codify. Photographers, being as a group strongly biased toward being gearheads, tend to lean toward wanting simply expressed rules that can be combined to produce Good Peecturz. Composition doesn't work that way. So, for the last 100 years or so, people have been merrily producing crappy "rules" that the gearheads can use to make their peecturz less lousy. And they
work fine for that.

This has been to the detriment of actual design and composition. There is a reason so many of the really good photographers have started out as painters, or at any rate have some strong background in other fine arts. Photography may be fully accepted as a fine art, but the pedagogy associated with it is ridiculous and terrible. Moreso with the web and every click-hunting-jackass out there furiously copying all this terrible content.

Luckily, composition is well understood, it is teachable, and there are many resources out there. The key is to avoid anything written specifically for photographers in about the last hundred years. For the most part.

 

[tirediron]

Interesting read, thanks!

 

[robbins.photo]

Camera Club "rules" are a hopeless mess. As Baron points out, they have essentially nothing to do with.. anything.

Actual composition is a teachable thing, but it is kind of squishy and a little hard to codify. Photographers, being as a group strongly biased toward being gearheads, tend to lean toward wanting simply expressed rules that can be combined to produce Good Peecturz. Composition doesn't work that way. So, for the last 100 years or so, people have been merrily producing crappy "rules" that the gearheads can use to make their peecturz less lousy. And they
work fine for that.

This has been to the detriment of actual design and composition. There is a reason so many of the really good photographers have started out as painters, or at any rate have some strong background in other fine arts. Photography may be fully accepted as a fine art, but the pedagogy associated with it is ridiculous and terrible. Moreso with the web and every click-hunting-jackass out there furiously copying all this terrible content.

Luckily, composition is well understood, it is teachable, and there are many resources out there. The key is to avoid anything written specifically for photographers in about the last hundred years. For the most part.

Ok, gotta give you bonus points for using pedagogy in a sentence. I guess my thinking is you are never going to "judge" a photograph properly based on any sort of rule set. What makes a great photograph is it's emotional impact on the viewer. So really all the rules out there are based more on "what most people like" than anything else.

Case in point - I really can't stand most black and white photography. When I see a black and white photo, for the most part, I think to myself - wow. Nice picture. Damn shame the photographer chose to completely ruin it by trying to make it "edgy" or "artsy". There are a few.. a very, very few photographs that actual benefit from being converted to B&W, but at least to my eye that's only about 1% of all the B&W photos I see out there on a daily basis.

However I also understand and accept that a lot of other photographers and viewers like black and white. For them it seems to add something to the photograph. To me it's like stamping the words "Look, IT'S ART!" in huge red letters right across the photo, but for whatever reason it seems to be popular with others.

That I think is what's really missing in the discussion about rules and composition and the like, that in truth they are not so much "rules" but rather "what's will make a picture popular". Nothing wrong with that of course, but I think when you think of that in that context you'll begin to consider that there are times when if you really want to be true to the shot, you need to run the risk of it not being popular.

Just my 2 cents worth of course, YMMV

 

[KenC]

When I see a black and white photo, for the most part, I think to myself - wow. Nice picture. Damn shame the photographer chose to completely ruin it by trying to make it "edgy" or "artsy".

I agree that a lot of people do B&W for bad reasons, or for no particular reason, but how can you know that what the photographer did was to "ruin it" without having seen the original image for comparison? I convert some (unknown) percentage of my images into B&W. The most common reason I choose to do so is that in my opinion the color gets in the way of what I want the image to do. For example, if an image is about an arrangement of objects in a certain composition, and one of the objects is brightly colored, then that object would "take over" the image because it would draw too much attention. Of course if the other colors are such that any conversion I can do does not separate the elements from each other and the background in a way that works, then the image is not going anywhere in any form. Many of the classic B&W images are about things having nothing to do with color: shape, line, texture, light/dark contrast, etc., and would not have worked as well in color.

 

[robbins.photo]

When I see a black and white photo, for the most part, I think to myself - wow. Nice picture. Damn shame the photographer chose to completely ruin it by trying to make it "edgy" or "artsy".

I agree that a lot of people do B&W for bad reasons, or for no particular reason, but how can you know that what the photographer did was to "ruin it" without having seen the original image for comparison? I convert some (unknown) percentage of my images into B&W. The most common reason I choose to do so is that in my opinion the color gets in the way of what I want the image to do. For example, if an image is about an arrangement of objects in a certain composition, and one of the objects is brightly colored, then that object would "take over" the image because it would draw too much attention. Of course if the other colors are such that any conversion I can do does not separate the elements from each other and the background in a way that works, then the image is not going anywhere in any form. Many of the classic B&W images are about things having nothing to do with color: shape, line, texture, light/dark contrast, etc., and would not have worked as well in color.

Like I said, just my general impression of B&W photography. How do you "prove" anything of the sort, with any image? I mean nice of you to try and take it all out of context like that but seriously, the general point still stands. It's about what's popular, and I am all ready well aware that my opinon of B&W is not shared by most. Pretty much the entire point of the post.

 

[The_Traveler]

Case in point - I really can't stand most black and white photography. When I see a black and white photo, for the most part, I think to myself - wow. Nice picture. Damn shame the photographer chose to completely ruin it by trying to make it "edgy" or "artsy". There are a few.. a very, very few photographs that actual benefit from being converted to B&W, but at least to my eye that's only about 1% of all the B&W photos I see out there on a daily basis.

However I also understand and accept that a lot of other photographers and viewers like black and white. For them it seems to add something to the photograph. To me it's like stamping the words "Look, IT'S ART!" in huge red letters right across the photo, but for whatever reason it seems to be popular with others.

So are you OK with pictures with only B&W content but shot in color?

 

[The_Traveler]

Case in point - I really can't stand most black and white photography. When I see a black and white photo, for the most part, I think to myself - wow. Nice picture. Damn shame the photographer chose to completely ruin it by trying to make it "edgy" or "artsy". There are a few.. a very, very few photographs that actual benefit from being converted to B&W, but at least to my eye that's only about 1% of all the B&W photos I see out there on a daily basis.

However I also understand and accept that a lot of other photographers and viewers like black and white. For them it seems to add something to the photograph. To me it's like stamping the words "Look, IT'S ART!" in huge red letters right across the photo, but for whatever reason it seems to be popular with others.

and how do you feel about 'artsy' pictures in color?

 

[The_Traveler]

Just trying to see how wide are the boundaries of your unthinking prejudice.

 

[gsgary]

I don't enter any more club competitions any more, it's a waste of time unless you shoot Natural History

 

[gsgary]

Camera Club "rules" are a hopeless mess. As Baron points out, they have essentially nothing to do with.. anything.

Actual composition is a teachable thing, but it is kind of squishy and a little hard to codify. Photographers, being as a group strongly biased toward being gearheads, tend to lean toward wanting simply expressed rules that can be combined to produce Good Peecturz. Composition doesn't work that way. So, for the last 100 years or so, people have been merrily producing crappy "rules" that the gearheads can use to make their peecturz less lousy. And they
work fine for that.

This has been to the detriment of actual design and composition. There is a reason so many of the really good photographers have started out as painters, or at any rate have some strong background in other fine arts. Photography may be fully accepted as a fine art, but the pedagogy associated with it is ridiculous and terrible. Moreso with the web and every click-hunting-jackass out there furiously copying all this terrible content.

Luckily, composition is well understood, it is teachable, and there are many resources out there. The key is to avoid anything written specifically for photographers in about the last hundred years. For the most part.

Ok, gotta give you bonus points for using pedagogy in a sentence. I guess my thinking is you are never going to "judge" a photograph properly based on any sort of rule set. What makes a great photograph is it's emotional impact on the viewer. So really all the rules out there are based more on "what most people like" than anything else.

Case in point - I really can't stand most black and white photography. When I see a black and white photo, for the most part, I think to myself - wow. Nice picture. Damn shame the photographer chose to completely ruin it by trying to make it "edgy" or "artsy". There are a few.. a very, very few photographs that actual benefit from being converted to B&W, but at least to my eye that's only about 1% of all the B&W photos I see out there on a daily basis.

However I also understand and accept that a lot of other photographers and viewers like black and white. For them it seems to add something to the photograph. To me it's like stamping the words "Look, IT'S ART!" in huge red letters right across the photo, but for whatever reason it seems to be popular with others.

That I think is what's really missing in the discussion about rules and composition and the like, that in truth they are not so much "rules" but rather "what's will make a picture popular". Nothing wrong with that of course, but I think when you think of that in that context you'll begin to consider that there are times when if you really want to be true to the shot, you need to run the risk of it not being popular.

Just my 2 cents worth of course, YMMV

Not all B+W shots are converted some of us still shoot B+W on film, most of the best photos ever taken are on B+W film

 

[robbins.photo]

Just trying to see how wide are the boundaries of your unthinking prejudice.

Guess I wonder how wide the boundaries of yours are. I mean this was never meant to be a treatise on B&W vrs color photography, even though apparently now that is all that is of any interest to you and a couple of others. I did, after all, have the temerity to suggest that I didn't instantly love all B&W photo's and as such apparently that makes me some sort of heretic.

But yup, it's true. I guess I'm a heretic. I find most B&W work to be overdone, I think it detracts rather than adds from most photos. Sure, I've seen some absolutely wonderful photographs that could only have been expressed properly in B&W - but they are few and far between. Most B&W I've seen is done in B&W for the sake of being done in B&W, not because it really adds anything of value to the photo itself. I mean if photography is art then I guess it's going to affect everyone differently, now isn't it.

Gosh, that sounds so much like the original point I was trying to make that it's almost scary. So yes, not a big fan of B&W. So what. Some folks aren't a big fan of wildlife photography. Big deal. Others don't really like landscapes. Again, what difference does any of it make. I shoot what I like to shoot. If people find something interesting, uplifting, entertaining in it great. If they don't, that's just fine too. I'm never going to have everyone enjoy my work, and not every photo I take will be considered to be a masterpiece by everyone that views it. Such be life. I enjoy it, and that's enough for me.

Now, if you really wish to continue harassing me about my feelings on B&W, feel free. Just be aware that you are 100% completely off base and totally wrong for even attempting to do so - because how I feel about a photograph or a photographic style is absolutely in no way shape or form something you get to control. B&W for the most part leaves me feeling flat, bored and totally uninterested. Which, as the viewer, is my absolute an unequivocal right. As the photographer if you want to shoot in B&W, that's also your right. But you have ZERO right to tell me how I need to feel when looking at your photograph. That is hubris of the highest and grandest order.

 

[rexbobcat]

Just trying to see how wide are the boundaries of your unthinking prejudice.

Guess I wonder how wide the boundaries of yours are. I mean this was never meant to be a treatise on B&W vrs color photography, even though apparently now that is all that is of any interest to you and a couple of others. I did, after all, have the temerity to suggest that I didn't instantly love all B&W photo's and as such apparently that makes me some sort of heretic.

But yup, it's true. I guess I'm a heretic. I find most B&W work to be overdone, I think it detracts rather than adds from most photos. Sure, I've seen some absolutely wonderful photographs that could only have been expressed properly in B&W - but they are few and far between. Most B&W I've seen is done in B&W for the sake of being done in B&W, not because it really adds anything of value to the photo itself. I mean if photography is art then I guess it's going to affect everyone differently, now isn't it.

Gosh, that sounds so much like the original point I was trying to make that it's almost scary. So yes, not a big fan of B&W. So what. Some folks aren't a big fan of wildlife photography. Big deal. Others don't really like landscapes. Again, what difference does any of it make. I shoot what I like to shoot. If people find something interesting, uplifting, entertaining in it great. If they don't, that's just fine too. I'm never going to have everyone enjoy my work, and not every photo I take will be considered to be a masterpiece by everyone that views it. Such be life. I enjoy it, and that's enough for me.

Now, if you really wish to continue harassing me about my feelings on B&W, feel free. Just be aware that you are 100% completely off base and totally wrong for even attempting to do so - because how I feel about a photograph or a photographic style is absolutely in no way shape or form something you get to control. B&W for the most part leaves me feeling flat, bored and totally uninterested. Which, as the viewer, is my absolute an unequivocal right. As the photographer if you want to shoot in B&W, that's also your right. But you have ZERO right to tell me how I need to feel when looking at your photograph. That is hubris of the highest and grandest order.

I think the reason you got the response you did was because most others can't relate to you experience. Photography started out as black and white, and at a point color photography was seen as gimmicky and kitsch. So when you blanket most black and white photographs as just TRYING to be artsy it can be seen as inflammatory by those who primarily shoot black and white film. Your original comment was worded in a way that was pretentious and it seemed to be formulated to get the response that you are now getting worked up about.

Just saying that it's your opinion does not excuse you from being challenged about those opinions. If you want to express your opinion in a vacuum, go have kids.

Back on topic, good article. I'm going to share it with my local club and maybe it'll open some of the older members' eyes. And get this, my local club isn't even called the Lubbock Photography Club. It's called the Lubbock Camera Club. Go figure.

EDIT: This is just my opinion. Please do not respond with a retort, because this is just my opinion. Opinion is me. I am opinion.

 

[robbins.photo]

Camera Club "rules" are a hopeless mess. As Baron points out, they have essentially nothing to do with.. anything.

Actual composition is a teachable thing, but it is kind of squishy and a little hard to codify. Photographers, being as a group strongly biased toward being gearheads, tend to lean toward wanting simply expressed rules that can be combined to produce Good Peecturz. Composition doesn't work that way. So, for the last 100 years or so, people have been merrily producing crappy "rules" that the gearheads can use to make their peecturz less lousy. And they
work fine for that.

This has been to the detriment of actual design and composition. There is a reason so many of the really good photographers have started out as painters, or at any rate have some strong background in other fine arts. Photography may be fully accepted as a fine art, but the pedagogy associated with it is ridiculous and terrible. Moreso with the web and every click-hunting-jackass out there furiously copying all this terrible content.

Luckily, composition is well understood, it is teachable, and there are many resources out there. The key is to avoid anything written specifically for photographers in about the last hundred years. For the most part.

Ok, gotta give you bonus points for using pedagogy in a sentence. I guess my thinking is you are never going to "judge" a photograph properly based on any sort of rule set. What makes a great photograph is it's emotional impact on the viewer. So really all the rules out there are based more on "what most people like" than anything else.

Case in point - I really can't stand most black and white photography. When I see a black and white photo, for the most part, I think to myself - wow. Nice picture. Damn shame the photographer chose to completely ruin it by trying to make it "edgy" or "artsy". There are a few.. a very, very few photographs that actual benefit from being converted to B&W, but at least to my eye that's only about 1% of all the B&W photos I see out there on a daily basis.

However I also understand and accept that a lot of other photographers and viewers like black and white. For them it seems to add something to the photograph. To me it's like stamping the words "Look, IT'S ART!" in huge red letters right across the photo, but for whatever reason it seems to be popular with others.

That I think is what's really missing in the discussion about rules and composition and the like, that in truth they are not so much "rules" but rather "what's will make a picture popular". Nothing wrong with that of course, but I think when you think of that in that context you'll begin to consider that there are times when if you really want to be true to the shot, you need to run the risk of it not being popular.

Just my 2 cents worth of course, YMMV

Not all B+W shots are converted some of us still shoot B+W on film, most of the best photos ever taken are on B+W film

Please, read very, very carefully back through what I have posted. At no point did I ever state or even imply that all B&W photography is universally bad. I used the word most, and I went way the heck out of my way to state that it was only my opinion and not one that is commonly held. I get the fact that some of you guys really like B&W. I for the most part don't. But at no point did I ever say, suggest or even imply that B&W has no value or that no B&W pictures are any good. Most of them don't do much for me personally but so what. Now please reread what was actually posted because my feelings on B&W are not the point, the point here is that not everyone is affected the same way when viewing a photograph, or any other art form for that matter.

I guess if anything I should thank you guys for not getting the point - your crusade to defend Black and White photography, while completely and totally off base, is very telling and perhaps something you should really think about. So far I've had several people almost out and out attacking me for having the temerity to suggest that at least for ->MOST<- images I didn't like B&W (To be fair GSGary your's was one of the few postings that did not come across that way). But there are others here who would see me burned at the stake for not worshiping at the alter of B&W.

I just find that rather interesting, and rather telling indeed.

 

[Derrel]

500px / Popular Photos