Doing a photo critique

I’ve spent a lot of my days critiqueing stuff. Back in the days, when I did a lot of writing, I went to Folkehøgskole. (kind of like an artistic boarding school where you faff about for a year while you decide what to do with your life. As far as I know, it’s a Scandiwegian concept — I’ve written more about the folkehøgskole over on Everything2.com). Part of the school idea was to give each other feed-back on writings done in class.

Giving feed-back on something is really easy. Giving useful feedback on a subjective matter — such as photography — is, in fact, extremely difficult. That’s why I’ve created sort of a check-list with some tips as to how I like to do critiques.

Photo: Valencia by Photocritic.org, on Flickr

The first question you have to consider is this: “Why are you doing a photo critique?”. After all, by the time you’re doing the critique, the photo has been taken. It might be hours, days, even months or years since the photo was taken. Perhaps it was taken abroad, or in a situation where the photographer will never be again. In other words, it is important to remember that a photo critique isn’t about a single photo: it’s about how a photographer can develop as a snapper, both technically and artistically.

“I like this photo, the contrast is cool” means nothing to the photographer, it only means that you like this particular photo, and that you feel that contrast is a good thing. “I like this photo, because it shows you’ve thought about the lighting, and the increased contrast adds to the overall impression of the amount of time you’ve put into lighting this item”, for example, would encourage the photographer to continue putting more work into their lighting. They’re on the right track.

So, when you’re writing a photo critique, try to break away from the single photograph, and try to take a wider approach to the way you look at photos by a particular photographer.

Also remember that there’s no right or wrong in photography. Gross technical errors (vast exposure problems, for example) can be universally wrong, but artistic considerations are not universal. Personally, I have a strong affinity for tightly cropped black and white photos. I have a friend who loves to do landscapes in colour, and I find it really difficult to give him useful critiques, because it’s not my style of photography…

Finally, if you’re the photographer getting critique, don’t get defensive. If fact, just shut the hell up. Getting people to talk to you about your photos is a rare opportunity, so don’t waste it. Let people talk (even if you think they’re full of shit), it’s their opinion, and your target audience should be important to you. Let them rant, and if you really have to, defend yourself afterward, once it’s all finished. Although — honestly — if you feel you have to defend yourself, you might want to take a step back and consider why :-)

Photo: Valencia II by Photocritic.org, on Flickr

Right, so how can you do a photo critique?

1) Look

First of all, take a close look at the photograph. Let your eyes scan it closely: Make sure that you’ve caught every possible detail of the photo. If something jumps out at you as being really good or really bad, note it, but don’t say anything

2) Interpretation

Now, talk about the photo for a little bit. This is the thing that is most frequently overlooked when doing critiques, but is actually one of the most useful things you can do to a photographer. For the interpretation, start off by saying “When I look at this photo, I feel…”. Explain what sort of emotional response the photo raises in you. Follow up with “I think this photo is about…”. Any symbolism you spot, tell the photographer. If you aren’t sure, let them know that.

3) Technical points

The next thing to take care of, is the technical points. Is the photograph technically okay? Did you spot dust, is the exposure okay, is there any unwanted blur (wrong focus, motion blur, zoom blur etc)? Are the colours accurately represented? What’s the contrast like? Could the photographer have used lighting differently? Would a bigger or smaller aperture have been beneficial?

4) Artistic points

What do you think about the crop and aspect ratio? If the photo is in black and white, should it have been in colour and vice-versa? Is there a good balance between the foreground and the background? Would the photo have worked better with a different prop / model?

5) Good points

This is where you point out what you like about the photograph, and why. The why bit is most important: If you can’t tell why you like X, Y, or Z, there’s no point in mentioning it. “I like the sky” is useless. “I like the colour of the sky” is better. “I like the deep blue colour of the sky because it contrasts nicely with the yellows and reds in the photo” is perfect. Put some thought into this.

6) Points worth improving

This point is saved for last, because you’ve made the photographer more confident about their photograph by now. It is still important to remember that the photo has been taken, and that this photo can’t really be changed anymore. As such, there’s no point in slating people for their photographs. Tell them one or two specific points that could be improved on this particular photo (’clean up dust’ and ‘turn into black and white’ are useful suggestions, as they can done in the darkroom), and perhaps one or two points that you would have done differently, if you were the one taking the photograph.

Photo: Orange tree in Valencia by Photocritic.org on Flickr

7) Overall

How did this photo appear to you overall?

About

This site is all about learning more about photography, from the incredibly insightful (rarely) to the dreadfully mundane (also, hopefully rarely) via just about everything in between.

If this website seems a little whimsical and random, then that's because the author of this blog, who for the occasion is confusing himself by writing about himself in the third person, is slightly whimsical and random himself.

Enjoy!

- Haje