How do I learn photo critique?

[colinh]

Now, I'm an artistic sort of guy. I can do pretty good paintings (of naked women) and rather good sculptures (in stone) of, ummm, well, naked women. But I can't express in words what makes a "good" photo.

What is "dynamism" or even a "Fibonacci line"?

I can relate to terms like "contrast", "focus" and "distracting background". Maybe even to "untidy". "Leading the eye" has already nearly lost me.

But how do you decide on composition (besides things growing out of people's heads and chopping off people's feet)?


I'm not being facetious, I just don't know how people analyse photos and come up with anything other than "I like it" or "it's rubbish". Partly there's the matter of taste, but some photos *are* better than others. Do good photos have to evoke some sort of emotion in the viewer maybe?

colin

 

[Matthew Allen]

Now, I'm an artistic sort of guy. I can do pretty good paintings (of naked women) and rather good sculptures (in stone) of, ummm, well, naked women. But I can't express in words what makes a "good" photo.

Naked women help.

I'm not being facetious, I just don't know how people analyse photos and come up with anything other than "I like it" or "it's rubbish".

To my mind this is the most important criterion. Although there are some general guides or 'dos and don'ts' that can help, there's no checklist for taking a good photo. If there were we could all take perfect photos all of the time.

Matthew

 

[Nikon Bob]

Freeman Patterson has a number of easily read books like Photography and the art of seeing. I found these helpful, too bad I can't put it into practice.

Bob

 

[Morca007]

Photography has more in common with painting than you might think at first, I critique composition in much the same way as a painting.
Technical details, well, that's pretty simple, you either know it or you don't.

 

[sheepdog]

Those Freeman Patterson book seems rather hard to come by, any places to look other than Amazon?

 

[sepiareverb]

Think balance of forms, lines or blank space. Think humor. Think juxtaposition. I have a hard time getting Photo 1 students to start talking about pictures, but sometimes the above helps. You might look at some books or through some galleries here and think about what appeals to you about an image besides subject (naked women- there's some glimmer of that theme again). Why do you want to look at that particular image again? It can be as simple as a single line trailing across the sky or the shape that big blank sky makes. Take some time and let those 'whys' sink in. Soon the words will come.

 

[MartinL]

I just don't know how people analyse photos and come up with anything other than "I like it" or "it's rubbish". colin

Very close to what I've been struggling with in a couple of other threads. Like most, I begin by reacting to shots that please me and those that don't (somewhere between "like it" and "rubbish." After that, it takes thought and language. I connect something visual with an opinion or feeling, try for some words to express it, think about it, get some feedback, and the next time around build on the that experience at a little higher level.

I had some difficulty thinking about (critiquing) my own and others "street shots." Seems like the term (like the tradition) is useful, but is an awfully big tent as it's often used on RFF. Just what is it that makes it a) a street shot; and b) a street shot that I like?

"Critique" has its tradition in art, literature, photography, and it means something different from "analysis." IMO, "analysis" tries accurately to describe what's there. Critique asks how it fits in with the rest of our experiences and traditions: it's less safe, more contentious, and to me, fascinating.

A forum like this is (or should be) a good place to raise and explore these questions that, IMO, evolve into skills. One shortcoming is that lots of people, for a multitude of reasons, appear to reject the entire notion of critique. Others will offer opinion or, less edgy, encouragement.

Not long ago I commented on something positive about a poster's shot: it was a tiny human figure in the lower corner which I felt added important scale to the depth of the downward-looking staircase. Someone else added that he tried to avoid the "artifice" of including figures for this purpose. Made me rethink and relook. Is that shot a novel look using a technique that has universal appeal? Or is it a cliche?

What is "dynamism" or even a "Fibonacci line"? [\quote]

Just as an experiment, try Googling these terms (ex. "dynamism definition"). After a few minutes you should get the gist of it. Then look for the appearance of what you've read in your own and others' photos. How does this match up with your reaction to these pics?

 

[keithwms]

Colin, what kind of critique is helpful to you? Do you know people whose critique you would really like to hear? People whose opinions you really value, and who value yours? Without that kind of relationship, I think forum critique is not so helpful.

Frankly I do ~zero critique on RFF, it's just to hard for me to figure out what level of critique people want and to pick one photograph out of so many. On another site, which is geared toward intermediates and people with a stated preference for more lengthy and unvarnished critique, the comments flow freely, but it's a small community, so it may not be for you.

I think these larger sites don't work so well for detailed critique, frankly. People need to get to know each other a bit before they can gauge what level of critique a person might want. Otherwise it's a complete shot in the dark.

 

[iml]

I would start by reading John Berger's Ways of Seeing, if you haven't already.

Ian

 

[keithwms]

Berger has nothing but Marxism and male power on his mind! I agree that Ways of Seeing is a must-read. But I'm not so sure that it is useful material for someone trying to improve their own work, in their own time, with their own resources. My main objection to it is that it only has enough depth to make a few really obvious points, to wit: the subservient female nudity in this particular artwork is totally indulgent, and the artist was paid by a wealthy man to paint it! Surprise!

Nevertheless it is definitely a must-read. And one very positive thing that I will say about Berger, he does treat indulgent nudity as such, and Ways of Seeing did cross my mind when I recently saw the 32,482nd head-and-breasts shot on a certain other site. I mean, guys! if you can't get past the breasts then for crying out loud, work with men.

 

[colinh]

I mean, guys! if you can't get past the breasts then for crying out loud, work with men.

Are you nuts? 😱 Why do you think I bought a camera? (or 10)

Seriously though, isn't that like saying "no more pretty flowers, no more cute children, and no more rocky landscapes with dramatic clouds".

After all, it's all been done before.

And if you look carefully, the breats are all different 🙂

colin

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I don't critique. The main reason for this isn't that I don't know how to 'see', but more that I see differently than everyone else. I hate flower photos. I hate wildlife photos. I really hate macro bug photos. My main interests are candid portraiture, street photography, nudes, landscapes and still life. My interests also go into the experimental; I love cross processing, plastic cameras, and photos that break every photographic rule known to man. If you're looking for a critique that will get you on the way to technical perfection in your photography, I'm not the one to ask.

Also, there is nothing wrong with breasts. I agree that sometimes nude shots of women are overdone, but I've seen some amazingly good ones. Course, most of the really good ones I've seen lately are being done by women.

 

[iml]

But I'm not so sure that it is useful material for someone trying to improve their own work, in their own time, with their own resources.

Well, it's certainly no substitute for taking pictures, but I don't know a better introduction to composition/art criticism book. Every photographer should read it IMO.

The TV series it summarises is terrific, and goes into much more depth, but it's not available in any format nowadays, unfortunately.

Ian

 

[keithwms]

Now guys, I am not anti-breast 😉 Look at the context of my statement! It's about Berger! Light your pipe and read the Berger book and you will see!

Colin, I would never say that because a shot has been done before, it shouldn't be tried again... in a fresh way. Ultimately, the most valuable commodity in art is originality. There's nothing wrong with "head and breasts".... just keep it fresh!

 

[40oz]

Now, I'm an artistic sort of guy. I can do pretty good paintings (of naked women) and rather good sculptures (in stone) of, ummm, well, naked women. But I can't express in words what makes a "good" photo.

What is "dynamism" or even a "Fibonacci line"?

I can relate to terms like "contrast", "focus" and "distracting background". Maybe even to "untidy". "Leading the eye" has already nearly lost me.

But how do you decide on composition (besides things growing out of people's heads and chopping off people's feet)?


I'm not being facetious, I just don't know how people analyse photos and come up with anything other than "I like it" or "it's rubbish". Partly there's the matter of taste, but some photos *are* better than others. Do good photos have to evoke some sort of emotion in the viewer maybe?

colin

I think a lot of "good" criticism tries to quantify why "I like it," rahter than stopping at the expression of preference. In other words, if a photo strikes you as "good," an effort to understand what you like can help you improve your own shots.

For example, if you find multiple points of interest in a photo arranged in a spiral, one might mention this as one of the features of that image that cause it to be pleasing. The arrangement of lines of light and shadow might point to the subjects's face in another favorite shot, leading one to infer that using such lines might improve one's own images.

The inverse is not true - the mere presence of leading lines, spirals, rule of thirds, etc. in a given shot do not define it as "good." However, if one keeps those aspects of design in mind as one shoots, one can use those features to improve what would otherwise be a pedestrian shot.