Critiquing fellow photographer's work.

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

Here's something that's come up occasionally that I would love to hear everyone's opinions: being asked to give a critique by other fellow photographers.</p>

<p>Usually, I attempt to draw out the good points e.g. "You got the moment! *hugs*" "Oh wow, check out those colors *highfive*" "Composition is just right, great shot!" etc etc and if I feel the photog is quite keen and willing to listen, may point out some technical aspects I feel may help him/her/it improve.</p>

<p>Occasionally though, I am asked by photographers who do not seem to care about what they are shooting e.g. just shoot with no care about framing, exposure. Just basically, dslr, P mode, point, and shoot. It pains me, but it is not my business to say how people should use their tools.</p>

<p>Thus, when asked to give a critique by such photographers, I am not sure what to say. Usually I just nod, make appropriate vocal responses, and try to change the subject e.g. "Have you considered shooting from a lower angle?" "What about stepping back and using a longer focal length?"</p>

<p>How would you approach this?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

<p>There are times when one should be brutally honest, and times when one should offer generalities (I really liked the two suggested questions you posed at the very end of your post). Being able to tell what level of honesty and specificity to offer requires a good reading of the other individual, and it takes people skills to make that reading. [That's a disadvantage of doing it in a forum like photo.net; those readings can really be done only when talking face-to-face with the other person, IMO.] One just has to be able to hear between the lines of the questions being asked of them. I think one should always try to find a way to be positive, but that can be done do varying degrees, depending on the situation.</p>

<p>IMO decorum and discretion play a part. The purpose is to guide the photographer and encourage improvement. IMO one can be entirely honest and forthright without being brutal. YMMV.</p>

<p>One of the most illuminating experiences I recall as a relative beginner was watching a PPofA national print judging. They'd toss up an image I admired and not unkindly point out where it was lacking and various suggestions for improvement. Then they'd toss up a real ribbon-winner. The contrast was educational to say the least.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<p>How to critique a Photograph: <a href="http://www.ehow.com/how_2030593_critique-a-photograph.html">http://www.ehow.com/how_2030593_critique-a-photograph.html</a></p>

<p>I agree with Henry's first sentence. In giving feedback the most important part is tone of voice, and next is the first 10 words or so: if you start off by giving the person the feeling you are criticising them and not the picture they may stop listening immediately and not hear what you actually say. If you accept that photography is about personal perception you could start with something like "What I see is a picture of a dog, but it doesn't quite work for me because...". Then that can lead into questions about which program mode they were using. Or if it seems they were not just snapping away randomly you could give yourself some breathing space by asking "What were you trying to do with this picture?". Being interactive in this often helps because they are actively taking part in the criticism and in my view will learn quicker than when just being told. <br>

If they seem to have a bit of an understanding of photographs, ask them what <em>they</em> think about the photo. They are probably asking you because they know the photo doesn't quite work, and deep down they probably know why but just can't put it into words.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It pains me, but it is not my business to say how people should use their tools.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But surely in photography critique that is exactly what you are doing. If they are using P mode then you may need to explain how a longer (or slower) shutter speed would improve it, or a larger /narrower DOF. If someone is using P mode they may never stop using it unless they <em>understand why</em> a more manual control may benefit them (even if only sometimes).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>try to change the subject e.g. "Have you considered shooting from a lower angle?" "What about stepping back and using a longer focal length?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would say it is better to come from the 'practical end' suich as "I can see what you are trying to do but the dog doesn't really stand out from the background. It would help if you used a shallower depth of field toi separate him from the bushes and you can do this by ...".</p>

<p>This is a topic that comes up a lot with my clients when dealing with interpersonal communication and feedback about any subject. <br>

Being honest and forthright is always appropriate when giving feedback, strengths/areas for improvement is a nice way to frame it. This is different than saying "Your photo frankly sucks" which is an attack thinly veiled as honesty. It's not your job to try and interpret what their motivation is as they may truly be asking for feedback - take the question at face value. (You can clarify - "What part of it are you looking for feedback on?"). If they don't like your feedback they may have made the assumption that they would only receive accolades or are really just seeking validation. But people should, and hopefully will be prepared to hear a wide range of answers. If they aren't prepared for this, that's their issue, not yours. Of course, previous experience may indicate that a photographer asks and you know that they don't take feedback well. Being honest about that too is fine - "I'm not sure the last time I gave you feedback you found it helpful. Was that the case?"</p>

<p>Depends on whether the individual is a beginner asking for lessons, an intermediate photographer wanting to know whether they've successfully mastered the technical aspects, or an advanced photographer who's more interested in your impressions and insights unrelated to technicalities.</p>

<p>When in doubt, I'll check the photographer's previous work including their previous critique requests, comments they've offered to other photographers and their responses to those discussions. Saves wasting time on a critique if the person has a history that indicates they're only interested in accolades from fans. Also avoids embarrassment if the person is obviously experienced, well aware of the "rules" and breaks them deliberately for effect - no point in adding additional examples to the already hilarious list of <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html"><em>Great Photographers On The Internet</em></a>. If there's not enough history to infer any intention I may simply ask what sort of feedback they want.</p>

<p>When viewing requests on the critique forum I tend to respond only to requests with specific goals indicated. I usually skip non-specific requests such as "All C&C welcome!"</p>

<p>Lex, I often do the same. The photos on which I like to make comments, and on which I will spend the greatest amount of time, are those that ask a relatively specific question. That often gives me a clue as to where the photographer is coming from and what kind of comment would be most useful to that photographer.</p>

<p>Similar to Stephen, I think that there are times to be honest and times to be diplomatic. The first thing I do is try to determine if the person really wants an honest critique or just wants you to say that the pictures are "very nice". Not everyone is an aspiring photographer. Some people just want get records of where they've been or decent snapshots of family. Since the person asking your opinion is someone you probably already know, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out if they want an honest opinion.</p>

<p>If they want an honest opinion, and all any of us can do is give an opinion, then start with the good points, and then offer ideas on how to improve the weak points. If all they want is for you to say that their pictures are very nice, say, "Your pictures are very nice". I do that a lot.</p>

<p>I try to critique in a manner that I would want to receive on my own photos. If there are positive aspects to an image I try to include those in my comments. I typically choose photos for critiquing that I believe I can offer valid suggestions for improvement. For those images that are lacking a reasonalbly interesting subject, I might simply state, "What are you trying to convey with this photo?", similar to Mike's comment above. I have also found that by semi-regularly critiquing others' photos, I have developed a sense of self critique while shooting my own.</p>

<p>Sorry Harry, no offence, but that link "How to critique a photograph" could easily be entitled "How <em>not</em> to critique a photograph". I mean, c'mon, a <em>formula</em>?</p>

<p>Hi everyone!<br>

Thank you for the very illuminating replies. I haven't gone through the web links yet, but so far what I've read gives me a great deal of insight the next time I am asked.</p>

<p>I should add - the kind of question I'm most afraid of is: "Do you like this?" >.<</p>

<p>@Henry: The encouragement of photography is something I've always wanted to do, and I take the "lead by example" attitude. I was going to ask how to approach it differently, but the other responses later have given me a good idea how to go about that! Thanks.</p>

<p>Mike Hitchen: I think your response strikes me the most. I've never considered it from that viewpoint. I have met some photographers who I have mentioned to them - your photo's underexposed and perhaps you might want to use your exposure comp to correct it. Their response would be "it's too difficult to understand" - I point them to say, cambridge in color or Bryan Peterson's books and they say they can't learn from books or websites >.< These I really have no idea, and yet they still ask.</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

<p>Photographers asking for "critiques" can range from those who just want to hear "I love it!" to those who genuinely are looking for feedback. When I am asked to critique, I would try to separate the two and respond accordingly with honesty.</p>

<p>If the genre is one that I am not familiar with or have no expertise in, I would immediately state so up front and explain why I can offer minimal or no comments. For those I am familiar with, I would make sure that whatever comments I make, either objective or subjective, would be supported by WHY I say so. If I'm aware of the photographer's experience level, I would tailor my comments for him/her to understand.</p>

<p>Comments like "I love it!", "I hate it!", "Beautiful!" etc. without any explanation are not helpful at all, and cannot be considered as "critiques". But in most critique forums and guest books, that's all you will find. Image judged by scoring has the same problem.</p>

<p>For those who are serious about critiques, I highly recommend this book. It has taught me more about photography appreciation than I have found anywhere else.</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Criticizing-Photographs-Introduction-Understanding-Images/dp/0072977434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294320378&sr=8-1</p>

<p>If you think critiquing a photograph is tough, try going to a museum and ask the clerk there if you can read some critiques on a painting. Usually these critiques are pages long. The critique not only covers aesthetics and technique, but PURPOSE and STYLE. Every stroke of the painters brush is analyzed you begin to see little things in the painting that you never noticed before, you actually read the motive of the painter and painting. Of course not everything that is said is Nice, however it is not as subjective as sitting at home with a cup of coffee and pressing buttons 1,2,3,4, 5. There is a a big WHY behind each critique.</p>

<p>I think the suggestions you bring forth yourself, Alvin, are very good. You seem to handle these requests very well. I think I generally try to say something along the same lines when approached by photographers like that, even though it rarely happens.</p>

<p>What is a snap shot? It is a spontaneous shot that is unplanned and there is likely that there is no preparation made. I find it interesting to look up definitions. What is interesting is that many things that appear vague or undefined can be clarified by looking up a definition. I recently looked up the word portrait and to my surprise there was a big difference to what it once was considered and to what it is now considered. Every picture that includes a person is a portrait now but that isn't the way it used to be. A portrait was what you see in a studio and was a planned event, etc. I think if you look at a picture that has no planning and no set up it is more a snap shot. They probably won't be following any rules. I guess you could say nice snap shot. Technically it isn't a planned shot so the expectations are going to be less for good composition and/or technique. I try to have good technique but if the shot is spontaneous I often have to resort to photoshop to give it better composition because the way it appears often is flawed.</p>