How do you critique a photo?

[Martin.au]

Yabbut, look who posted that comment.

 

[Jenny D]

Depends on the photo (and sometimes depends on the person posting it, and how badly they've behaved in the past).

That's very petty minded.

 

[Goethe]

Subjective world or not, if the purpose of the image is a defined impact on a defined audience, then critique from members of said audience is far from useless.

But do you see the problem? In this scenario you are doing nothing more than to try and illicit a pre determined response (defined impact) from a specific group (defined audience). If this is the case we arent talking about critique, we are talking about instruction. Feedback from the group is pertinent only insofar as you need to create exactly what they want to see, or to make them give a response you desire.

You really do like talking in a very roundabout way don't you?

Anyway, yes, you could deem any form of critique to be a form of instruction. I don't see why that should change it's value.

Look, I dont want to get drawn into a long discussion on this. We obviously see things differently. But here is the definition of critique.

1.an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.2.a criticism or critical comment on some problem, subject, etc.3.the art or practice of criticism.

verb (used with object), critiqued, critiquing.

4.to review or analyze critically.

The basis of critique comes back to criticism. And the definition of criticism is as follows.

1.the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.2.the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.3.the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.4.a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.5.any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.:historical criticism; literary criticism.6.investigation of the text, origin, etc., of literary documents, especially Biblical ones:textual criticism.

The majority of the above deals with some form of passing judgement, not instruction. In fact instruction doesnt really enter into it which is why I drew contrast between it and critique in your example in the first place. In light of that if you go back and read my original response you will see that it makes perfect sense. Or not, no skin off my back. But to critique something is to pass judgement on it, to render a verdict. As far as photography goes my belief is the only one critique which is important is the one done by the artist or creator of the image. Sure, ANYBODY can pass judgement on a photograph. But this will all be based on subjective criteria that the creator does not have access to. An image needs to pass muster with it's maker before anything else.

If you want to paint a very narrow picture example as you did (defined impact/defined audience) to get me to admit that not everything is subjective then sorry, I'm just not going to do it. Honestly (and I mean no disrespect) but that is a bit of a straw man scenario.

Can critique lead to instruction? Yes. But they are not in anyway the same.

 

[Dheorl]

Subjective world or not, if the purpose of the image is a defined impact on a defined audience, then critique from members of said audience is far from useless.

But do you see the problem? In this scenario you are doing nothing more than to try and illicit a pre determined response (defined impact) from a specific group (defined audience). If this is the case we arent talking about critique, we are talking about instruction. Feedback from the group is pertinent only insofar as you need to create exactly what they want to see, or to make them give a response you desire.

You really do like talking in a very roundabout way don't you?

Anyway, yes, you could deem any form of critique to be a form of instruction. I don't see why that should change it's value.

Look, I dont want to get drawn into a long discussion on this. We obviously see things differently. But here is the definition of critique.

1.an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.2.a criticism or critical comment on some problem, subject, etc.3.the art or practice of criticism.

verb (used with object), critiqued, critiquing.

4.to review or analyze critically.

The basis of critique comes back to criticism. And the definition of criticism is as follows.

1.the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.2.the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.3.the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.4.a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.5.any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.:historical criticism; literary criticism.6.investigation of the text, origin, etc., of literary documents, especially Biblical ones:textual criticism.

The majority of the above deals with some form of passing judgement, not instruction. In fact instruction doesnt really enter into it which is why I drew contrast between it and critique in your example in the first place. In light of that if you go back and read my original response you will see that it makes perfect sense. Or not, no skin off my back. But to critique something is to pass judgement on it, to render a verdict. As far as photography goes my belief is the only one critique which is important is the one done by the artist or creator of the image. Sure, ANYBODY can pass judgement on a photograph. But this will all be based on subjective criteria that the creator does not have access to. An image needs to pass muster with it's maker before anything else.

If you want to paint a very narrow picture example as you did (defined impact/defined audience) to get me to admit that not everything is subjective then sorry, I'm just not going to do it. Honestly (and I mean no disrespect) but that is a bit of a straw man scenario.

Can critique lead to instruction? Yes. But they are not in anyway the same.

As you say, we're clearly just going to disagree on interpretation. I think you're wrong (on more than one count) and you think I'm wrong, but hey ho, no harm either way. Have a nice day.

 

[BrownieVet]

Depends on the photo (and sometimes depends on the person posting it, and how badly they've behaved in the past).

That's very petty minded.

 

[mamallama]

Depends on the photo (and sometimes depends on the person posting it, and how badly they've behaved in the past).

That's very petty minded.

 

[Martin.au]

Depends on the photo (and sometimes depends on the person posting it, and how badly they've behaved in the past).

That's very petty minded.

 

[Goethe]

Subjective world or not, if the purpose of the image is a defined impact on a defined audience, then critique from members of said audience is far from useless.

But do you see the problem? In this scenario you are doing nothing more than to try and illicit a pre determined response (defined impact) from a specific group (defined audience). If this is the case we arent talking about critique, we are talking about instruction. Feedback from the group is pertinent only insofar as you need to create exactly what they want to see, or to make them give a response you desire.

You really do like talking in a very roundabout way don't you?

Anyway, yes, you could deem any form of critique to be a form of instruction. I don't see why that should change it's value.

Look, I dont want to get drawn into a long discussion on this. We obviously see things differently. But here is the definition of critique.

1.an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.2.a criticism or critical comment on some problem, subject, etc.3.the art or practice of criticism.

verb (used with object), critiqued, critiquing.

4.to review or analyze critically.

The basis of critique comes back to criticism. And the definition of criticism is as follows.

1.the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.2.the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.3.the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.4.a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.5.any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.:historical criticism; literary criticism.6.investigation of the text, origin, etc., of literary documents, especially Biblical ones:textual criticism.

The majority of the above deals with some form of passing judgement, not instruction. In fact instruction doesnt really enter into it which is why I drew contrast between it and critique in your example in the first place. In light of that if you go back and read my original response you will see that it makes perfect sense. Or not, no skin off my back. But to critique something is to pass judgement on it, to render a verdict. As far as photography goes my belief is the only one critique which is important is the one done by the artist or creator of the image. Sure, ANYBODY can pass judgement on a photograph. But this will all be based on subjective criteria that the creator does not have access to. An image needs to pass muster with it's maker before anything else.

If you want to paint a very narrow picture example as you did (defined impact/defined audience) to get me to admit that not everything is subjective then sorry, I'm just not going to do it. Honestly (and I mean no disrespect) but that is a bit of a straw man scenario.

Can critique lead to instruction? Yes. But they are not in anyway the same.

As you say, we're clearly just going to disagree on interpretation. I think you're wrong (on more than one count) and you think I'm wrong, but hey ho, no harm either way. Have a nice day.

Cheers mate.

 

[Don_D]

Some point out only the things they think are wrong with a photo while others give only praise. I think a good critique should include both. What do you think?

I think a good critique contains both, but the proportion does depend on the circumstances:

is it judges commenting to a group at a photo club contest where the good aspects of the photo can be emphasized and a couple of major flaws pointed out,

or is it a private one-on-one with a talented friend who you trust and knows that you are not looking for praise, but looking to make the photo better.

It's good to point out what the viewer likes about the photo both to be courteous and to perhaps point out some good things that the photographer may even be unaware of.

Sometimes these can be technical like good composition or lighting, but often can be quite abstract....like the mood the photo conveys to the viewer.

In general I would not go overboard with the faults of the photo (even a really bad one), but just point out several main things to be improved....unless the photographer insists.

--
Don

 

[Max Iso]

Some point out only the things they think are wrong with a photo while others give only praise. I think a good critique should include both. What do you think?

 

[biza43]

Honestly, to the point, and to the best of my ability.

 

[hampshirejohn]

If you cannot say anything constructive, do not say anything.

 

[tbcass]

I don't think anybody should critique the artistic or compositional nature of a photo that is an example of a type of photography they don't like. Years ago there was Jazz critic who wrote for a magazine. They had him review Rock music albums which he obviously hated. The most memorable was his review of Jimi Hendrix's first album panning it as just a lot of loud noise and suggesting they should stuff their long bushy hair into their ears. Having a movie critic review a genre they don't like or understand is another example.

As for BIF, I tend to avoid critiquing them because I suck at it and don't really do much of it. It's possibly the most difficult type of photography so any reasonably successful example is fine by me.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels

 

[tbcass]

Ya but, look who posted that comment.

Is he a known troll?

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

Some point out only the things they think are wrong with a photo while others give only praise. I think a good critique should include both. What do you think?

The question is simple but the answer less so.

Your question implies something that isn't necessarily true - that a picture will always deserve some form of praise. But, sadly, many pictures don't deserve praise.

If someone asks for critique I assume they want to know how to do better. I therefore concentrate my time (thinking and typing, which isn't fast) on things that can be improved. I often put a lot of effort into editing the picture and creating a screen shot of what I've done. I rely on the intelligence of the author of the picture to realise that I wouldn't bother to do that if the picture had no merit.

I've been critiquing photos here for years. I've had one complaint from someone who didn't like the way I do it (who was happy with what other people said but who - on the evidence of subsequent postings - didn't actually foster any improvement) and a few zero responses. And plenty of thanks.

You say in another post that people should avoid critique of pictures whose subject they don't find interesting. I disagree. I don't need any interest in someone else's children to point out that it's better to frame and compose the picture well. Nor to explain the problems of, say, clipped highlights.

 

[Martin.au]

Ya but, look who posted that comment.

Is he a known troll?

 

[tbcass]

Some point out only the things they think are wrong with a photo while others give only praise. I think a good critique should include both. What do you think?

The question is simple but the answer less so.

Your question implies something that isn't necessarily true - that a picture will always deserve some form of praise. But, sadly, many pictures don't deserve praise.

That implication is wrong and it's pretty rare that a posted photo has no merit whatsoever. There's a big difference between pointing out what is positive about a photo and "praise".

 

[Jonsi]

Ya but, look who posted that comment.

Is he a known troll?

Keith Holmes/Burnt to a crisp/etc/etc

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels

 

[Jonsi]

Some point out only the things they think are wrong with a photo while others give only praise. I think a good critique should include both. What do you think?

Way, way back when I used to care what people thought, I appreciated being told the things that could be improved and sometimes "how" if I didn't know.

Of course it was my high school photography teacher, so it paid off to care what he thought ... though I would have anyway. Great guy.

I didn't need to be praised since I already thought they were good or I wouldn't have submitted them.

What I learned about DPR way back when the rules were not to post photos except to support a question/problem... was that 99% of the people here only want praise/validation. Dare suggest an improvement and an entire forum clique will be all over ya.

Lol..

 

[Tuloom]

It sucks or it doesn't.