Looking at and critiqueing photos

[Sparrow]

Yes Simon I agree that the negative space is as important a any other, but don’t you think the edges of the two spires fall on the vertical thirds and the top of the right hand spire and the bottom of the V shape formed by the sky and the dark mass of the building on the horizontal thirds hold your eye in the centre?


I’m in Skipton at the moment so just down the road.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Yes i do Stewart now that you put it into words - just not sure about the "99%" of viewers see images like this bit, but i may be wrong - and i often am 🙂

 

[Sparrow]

Yes i do Stewart now that you put it into words - just not sure about the "99%" of viewers see images like this bit, but i may be wrong - and i often am 🙂

Its just one of the things that seems to be “hard wired” in human perception, I can’t actually remember the rule, it’s a long time since I was at college!!

 

[anaanda]

Shutterflower's thread caused me to think about what makes a good photo and how to describe what you find good about it (or not!).

So, who is daring enough to venture out there, select a photo (rff member, famous photog, your own) and discuss its merits and its weak points? I want to learn how to look at photos, learn to critique them constructively, and learn what terminology is used and what it means. 😱

good photos are well composed and tell a story, they don't have to be techincally perfect but should maintain integrity in this regard. They should reflect the mind of the photographer and in fact it is the state of mind of the photography that matters for me. They may be an excellent photographer yet the mind may be corrupted. Whether something is good is totally subjective. I think style is very important and a good photographer will have a style (but that can change)...Most people can agree on compostion and techincal merit, yet someone may or may not like the photo based on personal preference...