raid
Dad Photographer
I wonder what goes through your mind when you go about critiquing photos taken by other people. I try to go first so that I am not affected by posted critiques, and if I am not first, I totally ignore all critiques and jump to the end to post mine. Then, I go back and read the other critiques to see what I missed.
In one of my last critique sessions, I deliberately posted a photo taken in harsh sunlight with no composition are than getting a face into the frame. I was relieved to see negative critiques! It is important that we post photos that need work. This way,we open the door for constructive critique and we all learn from such activities.
How do you go about critiqueing a photo?
Raid
In one of my last critique sessions, I deliberately posted a photo taken in harsh sunlight with no composition are than getting a face into the frame. I was relieved to see negative critiques! It is important that we post photos that need work. This way,we open the door for constructive critique and we all learn from such activities.
How do you go about critiqueing a photo?
Raid
Last edited:
planetjoe
Just some guy, you know?
Raid:
I liked what I read in this thread, which was written as a precursor to the Critique Threads run by RayPA and others. Of course, you may have seen this already.
I agree with your particular style of isolating yourself from existing critiques at first; I'm likely to be swayed by others, so I like to hold myself apart from the masses until I develop an impression.
That said, I need to comment/critique more. I don't know why I've found it hard to get the hang of it here on RFF.
Cheers,
--joe.
I liked what I read in this thread, which was written as a precursor to the Critique Threads run by RayPA and others. Of course, you may have seen this already.
I agree with your particular style of isolating yourself from existing critiques at first; I'm likely to be swayed by others, so I like to hold myself apart from the masses until I develop an impression.
That said, I need to comment/critique more. I don't know why I've found it hard to get the hang of it here on RFF.
Cheers,
--joe.
ampguy
Veteran
same here
same here
I also don't read other reviews before writing mine, but do find it reassuring when others see what I saw. I also learn when others have different opinions on composing or subject or exposure than from what I wrote, sometimes I think it's valid, and I re-think my review, other times I'm just right
I like that it is only a single photo, not a series on a theme, which would add significant review effort to do properly.
Under ideal circumstances, I wish we could all view and critique the photos without knowing who submitted them, what equipment they used, and simply judge the single photo on its merits alone with no other conscious or subconscious elements affecting the critique.
There are many limitations on this whole mechanism, although I personally think the benefits outweigh those limitations. One is that we are viewing low res on screen photos versus prints. I guess if all you look at are online photos, then it's not such an issue.
same here
I also don't read other reviews before writing mine, but do find it reassuring when others see what I saw. I also learn when others have different opinions on composing or subject or exposure than from what I wrote, sometimes I think it's valid, and I re-think my review, other times I'm just right
I like that it is only a single photo, not a series on a theme, which would add significant review effort to do properly.
Under ideal circumstances, I wish we could all view and critique the photos without knowing who submitted them, what equipment they used, and simply judge the single photo on its merits alone with no other conscious or subconscious elements affecting the critique.
There are many limitations on this whole mechanism, although I personally think the benefits outweigh those limitations. One is that we are viewing low res on screen photos versus prints. I guess if all you look at are online photos, then it's not such an issue.
raid amin said:
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
i have no problem reading another critique first.
i can make up my own mind and determine what i like or don't like.
i will look at a photo and then come back to it again later.
i look for 'wow factor', for 'i wish i had done that factor', for 'why did you take this factor', 'what is this a photo of factor', and 'i would never have posted this photo factor'.
that's how i start anyway.
i can make up my own mind and determine what i like or don't like.
i will look at a photo and then come back to it again later.
i look for 'wow factor', for 'i wish i had done that factor', for 'why did you take this factor', 'what is this a photo of factor', and 'i would never have posted this photo factor'.
that's how i start anyway.
raid
Dad Photographer
I decided to critique based on whatever came to my mind first after looking at a photo for a few seconds. Maybe I was thinking along the lines of Joe's factors above.
Raid
Raid
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I try to make a clear distinction between giving a critique and giving an impression.
An impression that a photograph has on me may have nothing to do with the technical, artistic, or thematic nature of the photograph. For example, just because I don't like flower pictures, I'm not going to dismiss it as a bad photograph; there may be very good technical, compositional, artistic qualities to it. Me giving a gut impression passing as critique neither serves the photographer into his/her insight about his/her skills, nor does it serve my eye by not exercising an objective view that would not hide things that are either positive or negative about the photo itself.
I don't look for a photo to "wow" me. If it does, that's wonderful. If it doesn't, either I missed something, or the photographer missed something; it's not always the photographer's fault; although photography is "visual", we are conditioned to think of the photo as giving an "instant impression".
I like details; I also like simplicity. I like logic, or a conscious lack of logic, without superficial fast-food-like immediacy. I also like abstraction.
Photography is visual, yes, but it is not just "what's seen". What does it tell you? What does it do to your senses?
...a thousand words indeed. Not just "yes" or "no".
An impression that a photograph has on me may have nothing to do with the technical, artistic, or thematic nature of the photograph. For example, just because I don't like flower pictures, I'm not going to dismiss it as a bad photograph; there may be very good technical, compositional, artistic qualities to it. Me giving a gut impression passing as critique neither serves the photographer into his/her insight about his/her skills, nor does it serve my eye by not exercising an objective view that would not hide things that are either positive or negative about the photo itself.
I don't look for a photo to "wow" me. If it does, that's wonderful. If it doesn't, either I missed something, or the photographer missed something; it's not always the photographer's fault; although photography is "visual", we are conditioned to think of the photo as giving an "instant impression".
I like details; I also like simplicity. I like logic, or a conscious lack of logic, without superficial fast-food-like immediacy. I also like abstraction.
Photography is visual, yes, but it is not just "what's seen". What does it tell you? What does it do to your senses?
...a thousand words indeed. Not just "yes" or "no".
back alley
IMAGES
and i rarely look at the technical side of things unless they are obviously lacking in some way.
that's one reason why bokeh means nothing to me. i don't study the shapes of what is not in focus in the background.
i look at the photo, the image.
that's one reason why bokeh means nothing to me. i don't study the shapes of what is not in focus in the background.
i look at the photo, the image.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I used to be a newspaper art critic, so I have plenty of practice at screening out the influence of other comments and concentrating on my own reactions. Of course, critiquing a single photo is very different from writing about an entire exhibit, in which case you're trying to state some kind of thesis involving the artist's or curator's dominant themes and trends, and then back that up with reference to individual works -- all the while trying to avoid boring the reader (who probably hasn't seen the exhibit) into a stupor!
When picking work to critique in the RFF gallery, I start by choosing pictures that strike me in some positive way. (We're all friends here, so there's no point in picking out an especially bad photo to give it a hatchet-job. That's sometimes necessary in professional art criticism -- especially when a highly-touted exhibit or artist fails to live up to the hype, and has to be ventilated for the sake of viewers who might otherwise be cowed into doubting their own judgment.)
Having picked a photo on which to comment, I try to analyze and explain briefly WHY I like it: Is it the appeal of the subject, the atmosphere, the technical brilliance? Really successful photos seldom succeed only on one level, so I also try to devote a few words to how its secondary characteristics reinforce its primary appeal: for example, a photo of an appealing subject that also happens to have an especially pleasing tonal range.
Then, since people presumably post their photos for critiques hoping to learn something that will help their future photography, I try to identify one or two areas in which the photo falls somewhat short, and (if possible) offer a suggestion or two that might be useful next time.
I don't overemphasize this, though -- I feel that actually the most useful part of the critique is identifying the successful elements of the photo. A few years ago I read an interesting article in a management newsletter, by a psychologist who had been doing studies challenging many old assumptions about learning and training. One he especially disputed was the old saw that you learn from your mistakes. In fact, he said, his research shows that you learn most from your successes -- he suggested concentrating on them, trying to learn WHY they succeeded, and then apply the learning to other situations. I think that's a good model for a successful short critique.
When picking work to critique in the RFF gallery, I start by choosing pictures that strike me in some positive way. (We're all friends here, so there's no point in picking out an especially bad photo to give it a hatchet-job. That's sometimes necessary in professional art criticism -- especially when a highly-touted exhibit or artist fails to live up to the hype, and has to be ventilated for the sake of viewers who might otherwise be cowed into doubting their own judgment.)
Having picked a photo on which to comment, I try to analyze and explain briefly WHY I like it: Is it the appeal of the subject, the atmosphere, the technical brilliance? Really successful photos seldom succeed only on one level, so I also try to devote a few words to how its secondary characteristics reinforce its primary appeal: for example, a photo of an appealing subject that also happens to have an especially pleasing tonal range.
Then, since people presumably post their photos for critiques hoping to learn something that will help their future photography, I try to identify one or two areas in which the photo falls somewhat short, and (if possible) offer a suggestion or two that might be useful next time.
I don't overemphasize this, though -- I feel that actually the most useful part of the critique is identifying the successful elements of the photo. A few years ago I read an interesting article in a management newsletter, by a psychologist who had been doing studies challenging many old assumptions about learning and training. One he especially disputed was the old saw that you learn from your mistakes. In fact, he said, his research shows that you learn most from your successes -- he suggested concentrating on them, trying to learn WHY they succeeded, and then apply the learning to other situations. I think that's a good model for a successful short critique.
ghost
Well-known
depends on the kind of photo. if we're talking about art, just google "art criticism".
raid
Dad Photographer
It seems that people expect you to post a "good" photo for critique and not an occasional "bad one" to see what is wrong with it. I don't know; I prefer having both types being critiqued. This should be educational and not competetive.
Raid
Raid
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I'm surprised because I actually don't read the other criticisms in the critique threads-- like prior to giving mine--like I initially thought I would. I think this is really a good thing--a little bonus to doing this online. In group critiques you hear other people's critique and it DOES seem to influence what you might offer up, and how you might look at a photo.
.
.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
raid amin said:
My initial reaction was that I don't know if it's really "fair" to offer up a "bad" photo. I guess we should define "bad." To me, it's a photo that you've no intention of progressing, because it has no value to you. To offer something like that up for critique seems a waste of all the participants' time.
However, I could see where it would possibly have some value, kind of a "what went wrong here? Why did this seem like a good idea at the time, and now it seems like a waste of resources?" .
raid
Dad Photographer
Ray: I saw in some journal how they show a plain photo, followed by adjustments leading to an improvement. This is what I meant with posting a bad photo. It would be an educational experience to see what went wrong and what could have been done. I don't see this as a waste of time at all. I am an educator for a living, and I am used to motivate and to assist students to move up from below and to the top.
I already posted twice mediocre photos in critique sessions, and I find some people making appologies for not liking the photos as if it is expected to praise photos. Maybe we could have a crtique thread "what is wrong with this photo and how could I have done better"?
Raid
I already posted twice mediocre photos in critique sessions, and I find some people making appologies for not liking the photos as if it is expected to praise photos. Maybe we could have a crtique thread "what is wrong with this photo and how could I have done better"?
Raid