How to critique a photograph

^^^ I wouldn't dismiss it entirely.

Think about it, there are certainly a lot of general guidelines that do seem to help make images work better. Rule of thirds, take up the frame with the subject, keep the horizon straight, look for interesting angles, repetition, colors, yadda yadda.

There's no doubt that these things don't always work, nor are they always necessary, but they frequently do have a lot of impact.

I dunno... it's just interesting. I'd like to see how a group following rules like this would critique a big group of photos and see what the results are like.
 
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. ...

It isn't the way it is done outside of competitions, thank goodness.

Best,
Helen
 
It isn't the way it is done outside of competitions, thank goodness.

Best,
Helen

Actually, it is. Art directors often use this approach to chose between different photos for inclusion into a display, book, gallery etc. Being more objective, it is easy to justify.

skieur
 
Well your CC can't really fall short since it is your opinion on how you see the photo. There isn't really a right way and wrong way to take a photo. Sometimes people get too caught up in the technicalities of photography

I agree..... The whole notion that there are rules that make a good and bad photograph really turn me away. I prefer to seek CC one on one with people that I am familiar with their work/style... a two way conversation over a glass of beer. A photograph is as much about technicalities as it is about feelings/stories.. I think that is a point that a lot of people, newbies, experienced, and professionals, all miss.

In fact, I had the idea to start a theme thread urging people to post photos that are unique/different in compositions that does not conform to the traditional sense of proper. I think I had 3 people posting not including me.... highly disappointing.


This whole thing brings back nightmares of that thread that tried to argue that a "snapshot" isn't a photograph that is worth even a glance. blah!
 
Actually, it is. Art directors often use this approach to chose between different photos for inclusion into a display, book, gallery etc. Being more objective, it is easy to justify.

skieur


I believe what Helen was saying, that outside the "professional," commercial, club competition circuit, etc. it is not done that way in the critiquing of art for the purpose of art's sake. If you are an artist or an aspiring one, mentors, curators and teachers (not necessarily academic) are where you should be looking for your proper critique.

Please correct me Helen if this is not what you meant.
 
I believe what Helen was saying, that outside the "professional," commercial, club competition circuit, etc. it is not done that way in the critiquing of art for the purpose of art's sake. If you are an artist or an aspiring one, mentors, curators and teachers (not necessarily academic) are where you should be looking for your proper critique.

Please correct me Helen if this is not what you meant.

Actually it is done that way in teaching art and photography as well. I gave a presentation to art teachers at the request of the art department head in a large city board and learned that composition and technique were a basic part of their curriculum. I also later taught art and photography as well.

skieur
 
Last edited:
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.

Well I would agree IF this were a "professional judging and critique site". It's not though. It's a "Photo Forum". Even says so in the site's name. ;)

So there are all types here as I'm sure you know. From the P&S casual shooter all the way to the artist/professional extraordinaire. And within all of them there are those who are here just to share or maybe get a little casual feedback.

I dunno... just my opinion...


It isn't the way it is done outside of competitions, thank goodness.

Best,
Helen

So true. :thumbup:


I agree..... The whole notion that there are rules that make a good and bad photograph really turn me away. I prefer to seek CC one on one with people that I am familiar with their work/style...

Exactly.

This whole thing brings back nightmares of that thread that tried to argue that a "snapshot" isn't a photograph that is worth even a glance. blah!

LOL... Sounds about right to me.

Anyone can give a crit because it is nothing more than a personal opinion.

Yep, and no matter how many "rules" they think they are applying to it that's still the naked truth. Everything - even the "rules" are subjective and require interpretation by the person doing the crit - so it's ALL (at EVERY level!) nothing more than personal opinion. It's physically impossible for it to be anything else but...
 
Actually it is done that way in teaching art and photography as well. I gave a presentation to art teachers at the request of the art department head in a large city board and learned that composition and technique was a basic part of their curriculum. I also later taught taught art and photography as well.

skieur

Never said photography doesn't get taught that way, unfortunately it does; which is really fine for commercial, photojournalism, etc. But, certainly not ok for aspiring artists. While I strongly believe any artist should have a solid understanding of art history particularly in photography or their medium, the teaching of things related to graphic arts and "rules" and attempts to teach composition, do more harm than good to young artists, it kills the creative spirit.

Like I said, curators, mentors and teachers (not always academic) do not critique in the manor you describe, with the only positive I can pull out of what you stated being, the work must stand on its own, but it must be "judged" on its own terms as well.
 
Last edited:
Well I would agree IF this were a "professional judging and critique site". It's not though. It's a "Photo Forum". Even says so in the site's name. ;)

So there are all types here as I'm sure you know. From the P&S casual shooter all the way to the artist/professional extraordinaire. And within all of them there are those who are here just to share or maybe get a little casual feedback.

I dunno... just my opinion...




So true. :thumbup:




Exactly.



LOL... Sounds about right to me.



Yep, and no matter how many "rules" they think they are applying to it that's still the naked truth. Everything - even the "rules" are subjective and require interpretation by the person doing the crit - so it's ALL (at EVERY level!) nothing more than personal opinion. It's physically impossible for it to be anything else but...

The rules are not subjective at all. They are part of the Elements Of Design that have been used in the teaching of Art for a very long time.

skieur
 
Never said photography doesn't get taught that way, unfortunately it does; which is really fine for commercial, photojournalism, etc. But, certainly not ok for aspiring artists. While I strongly believe any artist should have a solid understanding of art history particularly in photography or their medium, the teaching of things related to graphic arts and "rules" and attempts to teach composition, do more harm than good to young artists, it kills the creative spirit.

Like I said, curators, mentors and teachers (not always academic) do not critique in the manor you describe, with the only positive I can pull out of what you stated being, the work must stand on its own, but it must be "judged" on its own terms as well.

Nothing unfortunate about it. Any field has learning, concepts, structure, criteria that have been worked out to provide standards for the field and criteria for judging quality work. Why should photography be any different?

Composition is based on the Elements of Design which all aspiring artists should be aware of, if they were taught art in a recognized school. I taught in a supertalented School of The Arts and it was certainly taught there by teachers who were also recognized artists in their particular fields.

I don't know how you differentiate between art teachers and academics but qualifications are certainly necessary in Canada for anyone to teach art, as in any other subject or area. Anyone who simply calls himself an artist would be laughed out of any application for a job in one of our schools.

By the way, I see absolutely nothing wrong with using specific, proven, objective criteria for judging photography. Why should anyone else unless they are engaging in the self delusion of considering themselves artists when their work does not support that delusion.

skieur
 
...... Any field has learning, concepts, structure, criteria that have been worked out to provide standards for the field and criteria for judging quality work. Why should photography be any different?
.......
Composition is based on the Elements of Design which all aspiring artists should be aware of, if they were taught art in a recognized school. I taught in a supertalented School of The Arts and it was certainly taught there by teachers who were also recognized artists in their particular fields.


I don't think anyone is saying otherwise... but once the foundation is understood I believe the thing that drives things forward is thinking out of the box beyond what was taught in school This is no different than any other field of study... with out that drive, we are destined to never experiment, explore, improve, and discover.

The TPF isn't school.... if it was, I wouldn't be here.
 
Nothing unfortunate about it. Any field has learning, concepts, structure, criteria that have been worked out to provide standards for the field and criteria for judging quality work. Why should photography be any different?

Composition is based on the Elements of Design which all aspiring artists should be aware of, if they were taught art in a recognized school. I taught in a supertalented School of The Arts and it was certainly taught there by teachers who were also recognized artists in their particular fields.

I don't know how you differentiate between art teachers and academics but qualifications are certainly necessary in Canada for anyone to teach art, as in any other subject or area. Anyone who simply calls himself an artist would be laughed out of any application for a job in one of our schools.

By the way, I see absolutely nothing wrong with using specific, proven, objective criteria for judging photography. Why should anyone else unless they are engaging in the self delusion of considering themselves artists when their work does not support that delusion.

skieur

Why should it not be different? Why should an aspiring art photographer be aware of the elements of design? What is the benefit? I can name you 50 masters who knew nothing of these things, nor a college art education, yet they created works that will stand in our most famous museums forever. How could that be? These things, ideas, only serve to label, categorize and put into neat little boxes what a photograph is suppose to be, so someone can grade it on how well it conforms or not and help them understand it. How does that help a student, other than to teach them how to make soulless empty work. I’m sure you would be happy if we all made Michael Kenna photographs that fit into the those boxes, but I prefer my art, my students, to let their lives influence their work and produce something more complex. True ability to see photographically and with vision does not come from a book or an element of design it comes from personal growth and an innate ability. You can not teach someone to have vision or how to compose a photograph, well, you can but only at the sacrifice of student’s creativity; only an uncreative person would attempt to teach composition to aspiring artists.

Hey, you can have all the neat little boxes you want, I wouldn’t want to take that security away from you, but again, when it comes down to who an aspiring photographic artist should speak to about a critique, it’s curators, mentors and teachers and anyone one of them worth their weight will not critique in the manor you suggest.

"Of the artists I know, I don't know one that makes their art for any other reason than the true deep pleasure in the process of making it. Artists are concerned with making, not with things made. And certainly not with the "idea" of being an artist. No sane person would be an artist just for the image of it. It doesn't pay well enough."
 
The rules are not subjective at all.

skieur

Hahaha... LOL That's like saying you exist as all things in all places and know all things. Yeah, right. ;)

All rules are subjective. ALL.

If they weren't then we wouldn't need judges in the first place. This is true in law as well but ESPECIALLY true in art and stuff like that which is FANTASTICALLY subjective in the first place.

Heck, the human ability to even perceive color and shape in a 2D representation of 3D space - a frozen slice of 4D time is highly subjective and varies with GREAT range from individual to individual let alone trying to apply some abstract set of rules they may or may not have a good understanding of. And "a good understanding" ≠ "a uniform objective knowledge".

What you said is really funny!!! Like, we're all machines with identical attributes & properties and the world around us is simple and already perfectly defined. Bahahaha... :lol:
 
I don't think anyone is saying otherwise... but once the foundation is understood I believe the thing that drives things forward is thinking out of the box beyond what was taught in school This is no different than any other field of study... with out that drive, we are destined to never experiment, explore, improve, and discover.

The TPF isn't school.... if it was, I wouldn't be here.

When I was involved with the National Association of Photographic Art which included both top enthusiasts and pros, there was lots of experimentation and some great creative work and the work with the greatest effectiveness and visual impact that won top prizes still fell within many of the parameters of composition and technique that I have previously mentioned. Moreover some prize winners had no trouble whatsoever moving on to other art venues such as gallery showings and being published in Photo Art magazines. In other words the same criteria applied.

skieur
 
Hahaha... LOL That's like saying you exist as all things in all places and know all things. Yeah, right. ;)

All rules are subjective. ALL.

If they weren't then we wouldn't need judges in the first place. This is true in law as well but ESPECIALLY true in art and stuff like that which is FANTASTICALLY subjective in the first place.

Heck, the human ability to even perceive color and shape in a 2D representation of 3D space - a frozen slice of 4D time is highly subjective and varies with GREAT range from individual to individual let alone trying to apply some abstract set of rules they may or may not have a good understanding of. And "a good understanding" ≠ "a uniform objective knowledge".

What you said is really funny!!! Like, we're all machines with identical attributes & properties and the world around us is simple and already perfectly defined. Bahahaha... :lol:

Until you are on a a top level judging panel looking at artistic photographs you will NOT realize how much consensus there is on top quality photographs. That kind of consensus would NOT be present, if the process was completely subjective.

It has nothing to do with your philosophical blattering about machines. The bottom line is that photography is like any other field. The creativity is expressed within the parameters of the field. To use an analogy, you can't write great literature without using language, structure, grammar, spelling etc., and those parameters have certainly NOT restricted creativity or created mindless, identical works.

skieur
 

Most reactions

Back
Top