Briot V. #11 : How to critique photographs constructively

[NancyP]

OK, I am hoping that there will be some discussion.

Re: self-critique - we do that every time we off-load a card, and decide whether the images are keepers. Why do we make that decision, and do we make it in a systemic and reasoned matter?

Why did an image not work? Specific technical goof? Boring idea (as in "just chill next time and wait for the good light or hike to a better setting, you don't need to be shooting every instant of the outing")? Experiment that failed (in which case, one notes "can't get away with that technique in that particular situation, try something else next time")? I am still in the doldrums of learning the technique of levels 1 through 3 of your pyramid (level 3 being assisted by The Photographer's Ephemeris, Sky Safari, the National Weather Service, Cleardarksky.com astronomical seeing reports, and taking and recording compass readings of worthy sites). I find that sometimes I get hung up in the "can I do this" and forget "why bother doing this", and other times I take the composition and lighting that I want, and find that my technical execution could be better. I am hoping to break through to the level 4, where the how-to-do-it skills of levels 1 to 3 are well enough internalized that one can exert 90% of the neurons on "why" and relegate the remaining 10% of the neurons to "s**t, I know how to get this effect, so go do it already" ingrained knowledge.

What do we self-critiquers measure ourselves against? D'oh! We see images we like on sites like this, or in fine arts prints or high quality books, or at our local photography shows. We should be asking ourselves specifically WHY we like the image, including both emotional response to composition and color and color or black and white luminosity, and evaluating specific technical components.

[dchew]

Nancy,
Although the topic of Alain's article was reviewing other's finished work, you raise good questions about self-critique. There are two distinct differences between the article and your post: First "other's" vs. your own and second "finished" output vs. the process of editing a batch of images, which I think of more as "inputs."

In regards to your first two questions, “Why do we make that decision, and do we make it in a systemic and reasoned matter?” I'm generally pretty bad and doing anything religiously, but one thing I try to do is rank my photos. Just the process of ranking with stars or whatever gets you thinking in a more structured way and critiquing a bit further than "Eewwww, that didn't work," or "Ooh, I like this one." It is equally important to define your ranking, much like Alain defined his pyramid. It doesn’t matter how you define it, just so long as you know what it means and it can be applied over an extended period, like your life!

For example, the difference between my 3 and 4 star rank is:
3. Has everything; meaningful style, artistically and technically good, wants to be printed

4. Image has a defining style; part of a Life’s Portfolio

So determining the difference between each level in my ranking system takes some thought and self-critique. Also note my criteria may be ambiguous or useless to others, but I know what I mean by "meaningful", "good", "wants to be printed", and "defining style."

Your third question, “Why did an image not work?” could if you like, be a specific step in your process. For example if you rank something below a certain level, force yourself to document the answer “why?” Maybe even in a EXIF field or specific keyword like X-Composition. Or put them in buckets to which you can apply a color label. So any image with “0” stars and a Red label means not used because of poor composition (or whatever criteria you come up with). I don't think many would always go to that trouble, but maybe during specific periods of someone's early development.

In regards to analyzing why we like someone else’s particular image, I find it interesting when I see an image with a particular style I am attracted to and it is different from my own. That is particularly important early on, and it is valuable in the development of my own style. For example, a few months ago Lula showcased Valerie Millett’s images, which I liked very much. I found it helpful to ask why and whether I want to incorporate some specific aspect of that style into my own. Or maybe a specific technique like using a neutral density filter. I don’t think that is copying; I think it is basic development and growth.

Dave

[Tilman Paulin]

Your third question, “Why did an image not work?” could if you like, be a specific step in your process. For example if you rank something below a certain level, force yourself to document the answer “why?” Maybe even in a EXIF field or specific keyword like X-Composition. Or put them in buckets to which you can apply a color label. So any image with “0” stars and a Red label means not used because of poor composition (or whatever criteria you come up with). I don't think many would always go to that trouble, but maybe during specific periods of someone's early development.

I think that's a really good idea. Firstly, forcing yourself to put perceived problems into words might help you to get a clearer idea of the issues. And secondly, if you tag the images in a consistent manner, you can at a later point look back over a collection of your photos and see, if there's certain problems that you got a lot. Then you can focus on trying to improve on those aspects...


When critiquing other peoples work there's one point important to me that hasn't been mentioned in the list:
Only critique the work in front of you. Don't make it personal - don't critique the person.
While the photographer may have put a lot of his personality into the single work you're looking at, there's absolutely no room or reason for personal attacks.

Keep it constructive, and if you can open up with some positive points (like Alan mentions in #12) even better.

[alainbriot]

When critiquing other peoples work ... only critique the work in front of you. Don't make it personal - don't critique the person

This is not on the list because an effective print review must take into account the experience level and the personal goals of the photographer, otherwise it is impersonal.  Notice that the list includes personal items, not just items related to the contents of the print.  When following my approach we are not reviewing prints alone, we are reviewing the prints of a specific person with a specific approach. This means that the artist whose work is being reviewed must be acknowledged and that their personal approach must be taken into account in the print review.  It is important not to forget that we are reviewing the work of a human being, not of a machine.  Too many reviewers make that mistake and the outcome is that they review prints as if they were detached from the artist who created them.

[mecrox]

I'd just like to thank you for this and for all the other articles in the series. I have found them very helpful.

[Tilman Paulin]

This is not on the list because an effective print review must take into account the experience level and the personal goals of the photographer, otherwise it is impersonal.  Notice that the list includes personal items, not just items related to the contents of the print.  When following my approach we are not reviewing prints alone, we are reviewing the prints of a specific person with a specific approach. This means that the artist whose work is being reviewed must be acknowledged and that their personal approach must be taken into account in the print review.  It is important not to forget that we are reviewing the work of a human being, not of a machine.  Too many reviewers make that mistake and the outcome is that they review prints as if they were detached from the artist who created them.

Alain, I'm not disagreeing with you on this.
My point is a different one though. It's about directing the critique at the work, not at the person on a personal level.
(as an exaggerated example: 'Your technique isn't good' vs 'You're no good')

cheers,
Tilman

[alainbriot]

I understand Tilman.  The example you give is clearly no longer a print review or image critique in that it fails to build the necessary self esteem necessary to move to the next step.  Building self esteem is the foundation of effective teaching and something that all good instructors need to do.  The problem is that a lot of reviewers are not teachers and are therefore harming the person whose work they are reviewing.  It's a negative process.  It is best to seek a review or a critique from someone who is trained as a teacher and has the credentials to prove it.

[NancyP]

Alain, I started on the "self-critique" point because one thing that an instructor can teach is the habit of being conscious about shooting and reviewing. Socratic: what were you trying to convey in this photo? How were you trying to set up the photo to convey the emotion? If the student doesn't make an attempt to observe and think about the goal of her or his own work, a nudge from an instructor might not be as effective. We all have blind spots - the key role of an instructor can be to call our attention to a blind spot. Ideal would be to get occasional critiques from expert teacher/photographer, interspersed with ongoing practice and self-critique and projects.

[alainbriot]

Hi Nancy,

This is part of what we do in our workshops and consulting programs.

Alain