How to critique a photograph

[Helen B]

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*. This may or may not be a valid assumption. I think that it is preferable to starting by assuming that you already know the photographer's intent. That's my main criticism with most of the critiques I read on the web, and why I think that the web can often be stultifying and homogenising.

Best,
Helen

*"the notion that authorial intention can provide a guide to interpretation, a criterion of textual meaning, or a standard for the validation of criticism."

...
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?.
...

...
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.
...

Maybe it is worth discussing the place of intentionalism in critique.

The assumption of intentionalism does not necessarily mean that the photographer has to explain what the intent was: the image may stand on its own. That's why the first step is answering the question "What is the perceived intent?"

In competitions the overall intent may be easy to comprehend: to produce a picture that will be judged highly by the particular judge or set of judges. I use competition in a loose sense - it may include editorial choice of photographs.

This thread is, however, supposed to be about critique. Critique that is useful to the photographer. The person doing the critique should, I believe, start out by asking themselves 'Why did the photographer take this picture? That's part of the critique at a high level. At a beginner's level it may help if the photographer explains what he or she was trying to do, no matter how mundane that aim may have been. The more specific the aim, the more important it is for the photographer to get pointers about the success of the image with respect to the aim. It can also be very important to discover whether the aim has been perceived by the viewer without any explanation having to be given by the creator.

"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?."

Succeed at what? If the intent is unimportant, how can one judge success or failure other than by assuming an intent, and hence skipping the first suggested question by using a stock answer.

Best,
Helen

PS I did ask skieur a genuine question that I would still be interested in the answer to: Just out of interest, what magazines are you referring to? as 'Photo Art magazines' (his capitalisation). I'd also be very interested in seeing some of skieur's photos so that I can get a better understanding of where he is coming from. Are there any examples on the web or in TPF threads?
Thanks.

 

[Bifurcator]

Quit the blathering characterizations which are getting silly and explain in straight clear English what is blatantly wrong, "ludicrous" whatever in using simple criteria in technique and composition to evaluate photos.

There's nothing wrong with doing that. But that's NOT what you said. You said in doing so that no "opinions" enter into it and that it's not at all subjective - and that is ludicrous and a half!!! It's ALL opinion - 100% of it.

A rule, concept, idea, technique, or etc. needs to be interpreted by the person attempting to use or understand them. All interpretation is personal interpretation unless the one attempting to understand the idea can become God or something. Personal interpretation equates to opinion. Opinion is subjective in and of itself by definition.

One judge may be of the OPINION that a particular photograph conforms to rule X while another judge is of the OPINION that it does not. This is the main reason we have panels of judges for sports and photography and etc. Because it's all subjective and based on opinions. If 3 or 4 independent educated opinions agree (or can be averaged) then it's a better representational opinion. It's still an opinion and it's still subjective.

Do you understand yet?

This is simply part of the human condition - think about it.

 

[Bifurcator]

You're already God in my book, baybeeeee....

:hug::

 

[skieur]

There's nothing wrong with doing that. But that's NOT what you said. You said in doing so that no "opinions" enter into it and that it's not at all subjective - and that is ludicrous and a half!!! It's ALL opinion - 100% of it.

A rule, concept, idea, technique, or etc. needs to be interpreted by the person attempting to use or understand them. All interpretation is personal interpretation unless the one attempting to understand the idea can become God or something. Personal interpretation equates to opinion. Opinion is subjective in and of itself by definition.

One judge may be of the OPINION that a particular photograph conforms to rule X while another judge is of the OPINION that it does not. This is the main reason we have panels of judges for sports and photography and etc. Because it's all subjective and based on opinions. If 3 or 4 independent educated opinions agree (or can be averaged) then it's a better representational opinion. It's still an opinion and it's still subjective.

Do you understand yet?

This is simply part of the human condition - think about it.

I don't know why I waste my time with such silliness, so I will restrict my answers.

Explain to me how technique items such as

blurred, ouf of focus,
washed out detail
no detail due to underexposure
unnatural and inaccurate colour and hues
camera movement causing a fuzzy image

EXPLAIN HOW THESE WEAKNESSES ARE MERELY SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS.

In compostion explain how weaknesses such as:

no visual centre of interest
backgrounds distractions such as a tree coming out of someone's head
an unflattering portrait composition that emphasizes skin blemishes

EXPLAIN HOW SUCH WEAKNESSES ARE MERELY SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS"

I throw your question back at you: DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET?

skieur

 

[Sim]

In compostion explain how weaknesses such as:

no visual centre of interest
backgrounds distractions such as a tree coming out of someone's head
an unflattering portrait composition that emphasizes skin blemishes

EXPLAIN HOW SUCH WEAKNESSES ARE MERELY SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS"

I throw your question back at you: DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET?

skieur

At the risk of throwing myself into the middle of a minefield here, I thought I'd take the definition of "interest" straight out of the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and let it speak for me:

interest: a feeling that accompanies or causes special attention to an object or class of objects : concern b: something that arouses such attention c: a quality in a thing arousing interest.

If feelings are not subjective, then I don't know what is.

 

[Overread]

Explain to me how technique items such as

unnatural and inaccurate colour and hues

don't know about you, but it depends so much on what sort of photograph you are marking - if its a wildlife shot as part of a documentary view point then yes something like the above is "wrong" but then again if you are creating an "artisic" look different colours can be a key part of the show - heck look at black and white or selective colouring (popular at the moment) or go as far as to look at just some enhanced or altered colour photos - there are tonnes out there.

Skieur you seem very much to be arguing from the point of a documentary photographer without taking into consideration the view of the artistic - which is why your cover all rules are being contested.

 

[Arch]

Lets not turn this thread into a slagging match... keep it civil guys.

I think alot of what Skieur has said is true.... however, alot of the issues which people have bought up stem from the original post which i personally do not think is correct.
It may be in the competitions and judging which some people / cultures take part in that there are only 2 sections of grading... but not where im from... and not from what i have been formally taught.

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.

skieur

I have always been judged and have judged on a third vital section.... Concept.

In many cases through my eductation... concept outweighed technical ability and composition. This is also true of some competition judging.

.i.e... you have an image which has a wonderfully conceived idea... it sends the viewer a message which gives an instant reaction, understanding and response.... and is not something the viewer has not seen before, however technically it is not perfect.
The next image is technically perfect and also works compositionally... but is of a park bench with no real concept behind it... no new idea... no inspired artistic expression.

The technically inferior but much better concept will be graded higher based on the wieghts in which each section is given.

This also means that judging can be subjective.

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?.

skieur

How can it be judged if the person succeeded or not if it is not known what the person set out to achieve?

Again, i understand how harsh some judging can be in terms of whether an image can stand on its own or not... but without the section of 'concept', an image cannot be said to have failed or succeeded in terms of what the image represents... it can only fail on a technical basis, which as mentioned before may not outweigh the initial concept.


At the end of the day in terms of this forum... any critique given is an opinion, some of which may help you understand your work better, others will be completely pointless in your eyes... but none of which are wrong. Any feedback is better than no feedback.

 

[Helen B]

I don't know why I waste my time with such silliness, so I will restrict my answers.

Explain to me how technique items such as

blurred, ouf of focus,
washed out detail
no detail due to underexposure
unnatural and inaccurate colour and hues
camera movement causing a fuzzy image

EXPLAIN HOW THESE WEAKNESSES ARE MERELY SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS.

In compostion explain how weaknesses such as:

no visual centre of interest
backgrounds distractions such as a tree coming out of someone's head
an unflattering portrait composition that emphasizes skin blemishes

EXPLAIN HOW SUCH WEAKNESSES ARE MERELY SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS"

I throw your question back at you: DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET?

skieur

I believe that the key reason why all of those are subjective opinions and not absolute weaknesses is intent: they may be used intentionally. They may be right for the particular image or series of images.

Blur, areas of detailess highlight or shadow, 'inaccurate' colours and camera movement can all be perfectly valid elements in an image. There can be good reasons to use them. Perhaps one wishes to draw attention to the particular properties of the photographic process. Perhaps one wishes to convey a sense, a feeling.

Having no centre of interest, or multiple centres of interest may also be a deliberate choice on the part of the photographer. I feel that it often invites the viewer to look more closely: to connect with the original scene.

One person's 'background distraction' may be another person's 'interesting juxtaposition'. A metaphorical or literal tree appearing to come out of someone's head may be there for humorous purposes, for example.

A portrait that shows skin blemishes can be read in a number of ways, one of which is "This is how we really are. We should recognise it and love it."


Instead of dismissing these elements as 'weaknesses', try starting from another place: tell yourself that what the photographer is showing you is what they want to show you, then ask yourself why they are showing you that. Don't assume that everyone shares your values.

Best,
Helen

 

[Bifurcator]

Helen B said everything I was about to say so I'll just agree and let it stand.

It's only by "opinion" that we decide any one of those "weaknesses" are legit or not, intentional or not, well executed or not.

 

[skieur]

i.e... you have an image which has a wonderfully conceived idea... it sends the viewer a message which gives an instant reaction, understanding and response.... and is not something the viewer has not seen before, however technically it is not perfect.
The next image is technically perfect and also works compositionally... but is of a park bench with no real concept behind it... no new idea... no inspired artistic expression.

The technically inferior but much better concept will be graded higher based on the wieghts in which each section is given.

This also means that judging can be subjective..

Actually no. In any field of art, literature or music, the content is less important than the skill, talent, and technique used in expressing it. An artist who can't paint, draw, or sculpt, a writer who cannot communicate in coherent prose, a musician who cannot write, compose or play music are oxymorons. The same is true of a photographer without the technical skill to take quality photos.

So no, the technically inferior will not be graded higher unless the technical weaknesses are very minor and the artistic and compositional qualities are major. A technically perfect snapshot with no visual impact versus a photo that grabs visual attention despite minor framing or background issues for example.

skieur

 

[dEARlEADER]

..a musician who cannot write, compose or play music are oxymorons.



skieur

How do you explain Brittney Spears?.... or Nickelback?

 

[skieur]

I believe that the key reason why all of those are subjective opinions and not absolute weaknesses is intent: they may be used intentionally. They may be right for the particular image or series of images.

Blur, areas of detailess highlight or shadow, 'inaccurate' colours and camera movement can all be perfectly valid elements in an image. There can be good reasons to use them. Perhaps one wishes to draw attention to the particular properties of the photographic process. Perhaps one wishes to convey a sense, a feeling.

Having no centre of interest, or multiple centres of interest may also be a deliberate choice on the part of the photographer. I feel that it often invites the viewer to look more closely: to connect with the original scene.

One person's 'background distraction' may be another person's 'interesting juxtaposition'. A metaphorical or literal tree appearing to come out of someone's head may be there for humorous purposes, for example.

A portrait that shows skin blemishes can be read in a number of ways, one of which is "This is how we really are. We should recognise it and love it."


Instead of dismissing these elements as 'weaknesses', try starting from another place: tell yourself that what the photographer is showing you is what they want to show you, then ask yourself why they are showing you that. Don't assume that everyone shares your values.

Best,
Helen

Photography and art is part communication and that is why the photo has to stand on its own. That is why what the photographer is trying to communicate is LESS IMPORTANT than what the viewer actually sees, views, and feels.

If viewers see the background as a distraction, then the photographer has certainly not communicated any other purpose for the particular background and therefore it is a weakness.

Lack of a centre of interest may be a deliberate choice for the photographer but that will not hold the attention or visual interest of the viewer and without that attention there is no communication, invitation to look closer, or eliciting of a feeling or reation. The photographer has therefore failed and it has become a weakness.

skieur

 

[skieur]

How do you explain Brittney Spears?.... or Nickelback?

If you are calling them musicians, then you are using the term sarcastically. :lmao:

skieur

 

[skieur]

From ARCH:

How can it be judged if the person succeeded or not if it is not known what the person set out to achieve?

Again, i understand how harsh some judging can be in terms of whether an image can stand on its own or not... but without the section of 'concept', an image cannot be said to have failed or succeeded in terms of what the image represents... it can only fail on a technical basis, which as mentioned before may not outweigh the initial concept. unquote

It does not matter what the photographer set out to achieve. It matters what the photographer communicated to the viewer through the photo.
If the viewers have no idea what they are looking at and have no reaction at all to the photo, then the photographer has not succeeded irrespective of what he set out to achieve.

And yes, a photographer can certainly fail on a compositional basis because composition can be looked at, as the appropriate use of the technical to communicate artistically. A technically excellent snapshot for example is not photographic art and certainly does not show up in top artistic venus.

skieur