Websites to learn how to critique photographs

[HoratioH]

A web site with contollable access is the quickest/easiest way to share photos long distance. You can be selective in who you allow to view them, you don't have to worry about emailing through firewalls, antivirus software, etc, and you can link photos to other sites like here.

Regarding the palsy walsy stuff, it doesn't take long visiting a site to figure out whether people are really interested in critique or if they really just want their egos stroked. Some sites have established cultures but people are always people and have different levels of tolerance, objectivity, etc. The sites that I've found with the most useful critique/comments usually have a good set of guidelines on how to critique and require a ratio of comments to posts. Of course there are always those who live by the axiom that rules are made to be broken and will game the system. I've found that if you hang around a site long enough, the culture manifests itself and those things are self correcting.

Northern Focus, would you please be kind enough to share the websites where they have guidelines on how to critique a photograph? The websites you think are the better ones. You can private message me if you would rather not post this information here. I am very interested in learning about how to properly critique and image, and from what I have searched there is not much out there in the forms of guidance.

Thank you.

[Manfred M]

Horatio - I have moved this posting to its own thread, as it is really not "on topic" for the thread that you have posted it in.

I am not aware of any websites that teach critiquing nor am I surprised that they are hard to find as there critique is a skill that requires a very knowledgeable photographer. Knowledge is something that is related to experience as a photographer in different genres. The critique part is based on using that knowledge to assess photographs and present those assessments in a non-confrontational manner.

The Photographic Society of America (PSA) offers a mentoring program on critiquing images that I have participated in, but one has to join that organization for access. The downside of this approach is that there seems to be an underlying assumption that the participant already is knowledgeable in analyzing an image and the direction seems to be more directed at wording the analysis it PSA "approved" language.

The Canadian Association for Photographic Arts (CAPA) offers a judging course that teaches these skills too (judging is really little more than critiquing an image and assigning a score to it), but this is a one or two day classroom course. Again, it assumes a good knowledge of photography and teaches some areas of analysis and presentation of the analysis (the CAPA approach on presentation is quite different than the PSA approach).

Local photography clubs may provide opportunities to critique images as part of their programming as well, but this will vary by club. The club that I belong to holds monthly critique sessions were you are invited to analyze and critique other's images as well as having critiques done on your own work.

Another way to learn is to submit your images to judged competitions and then to listen to the dialogue or write up from experienced judges.

You have not shared any information about yourself, so it is difficult to get any information specific to your location to you. This type of training delivery is often quite local, so where you live can have an impact on the opportunities to learn these skills.

[NorthernFocus]

Northern Focus, would you please be kind enough to share the websites where they have guidelines on how to critique a photograph?...

There is a pretty good guideline for critique at this link on naturephotographers.net. I haven't participated on that site for several years due to the activity level declining. That particular site is also a paid subscription model which I tend to avoid.

[HoratioH]

Manfred, I apologise for being off topic in the other thread. Thank you for giving me an in-depth answer to my question and relocating my question. I belong to a number of photography clubs and organisations, but critiquing seems to vary as to the view of the person critiquing the photograph. It appears that there are two schools of thought, the 'naturalists' and the 'creative post-processing people".

Thank you again for this information, I plan on following this up.

[HoratioH]

NorthernFocus, thank you so very much for the link. Like you, I tend to avoid the paid subscription models. But in this case, it might be worth my while to pay to check it out.

Thank you again.

[Manfred M]

It appears that there are two schools of thought, the 'naturalists' and the 'creative post-processing people".

I would word things a little differently. Some people know how to critique certain subjects while others are more generalists and can critique most works (although to be quite frank, I find doing critiques of abstracts to be quite challenging).

When critiquing an image, there are three main areas to look at:

1. The technical quality of the image (things like good exposure, how the light has been used, appropriate sharpness and good photographic technique as applied to the specific scene);

2. How well the elements in the image are organized (this includes distractions, composition and use of space) and

3. The emotional impact on the viewer (things like overall impact of the image, mood, the subject matter and the imaginative approach that the photographer took).

As an example, a bird photographer might recognize how difficult it was to take the shot while someone else will miss this nuance, but will still find it to be a well taken image.

[NorthernFocus]

...critiquing seems to vary as to the view of the person critiquing the photograph...

As it must considering that it is based on subjective criteria. Even when there are "rules" in judged competitions etc. they are still subject to individual interpretation by those judging. You will also find that the various genre have unwritten standards/expectations of composition etc. For example birds in flight(BIF) images flying away from the camera are a no-no. As is clipping the feet off of animals. Serious flower photographers have myriad little nuances that they look for. And so it goes for each different subject/genre.

... It appears that there are two schools of thought, the 'naturalists' and the 'creative post-processing people"...

If by "naturalists" you mean those who argue that the only legitimate photos are those presented "straight out of camera"(SOOC), then the only difference in the two is where the processing takes place. The SOOC people simply choose to do the processing with the software/firmware tools in-camera as opposed to those that reside on a computer. With digital photography image processing is done somewhere by definition. It's just a question of where it takes place. It has been my experience that the "naturalists" do tend to ride a high horse. It has also been my experience that many of them are early on in their photographic journey.

[DanK]

There are many schools of thought, and while some principles arise frequently in some or many types of photography, there is always an element of subjective taste--not only what people like, but also how much weight they give to various criteria even when they are using the same ones. And depending on your own preferences, the mix of critiques you find useful may well differ from what others of us find useful.

In commenting here, I try to focus on elements that are not too genre-specific. Underexposed is underexposed regardless, and distracting elements can damage all manner of different types of photographs.

[HoratioH]

Thank you Manfred. Yes, I most likely used a poor choice of words. I appreciate you giving me the pointers. These are wonderful guidelines.

[HoratioH]

NorthernFocus, thank you for your response. You were correct with my interpretation of a naturalist, where the only legitimate photographs are those coming straight out of the camera. For me, I am not partial to one view over the other.

Thank you for the clarification regarding the different genre. This was a lesson learnt for me. Especially with flowers, this was quite interesting. What I have encountered, was that some people let their preferences for a particular subject, influence their critiquing. I would prefer not to ever fall into that position. My goal is to look objectively at all photographs, regardless of subject matter, and look for the points made by Manfred.

[HoratioH]

Dan, thank you for your post. Yes, you are so right. Underexposed is underexposed, regardless. And there are a few other parameters that should be met for a great image. I am trying to look at all photographs, without a reference to my preference, and look for the qualities.

[Manfred M]

I would prefer not to ever fall into that position. My goal is to look objectively at all photographs, regardless of subject matter, and look for the points made by Manfred.

There will always be an element of subjectivity in any evaluation, regardless of how objective we try to be. A person who is not comfortable with spiders will likely have some built-in biases when he or she looks at an image of a spider, regardless of how well the photographer has executed the image. Someone who has a fairly socially conservative outlook may have a built-in bias against nudes.

One would think that we can avoid biases evaluating an image from a technical standpoint; correct exposure, appropriate depth of field and appropriate shutter speed all seem to be fairly straight forward. Moody lighting might be viewed as incorrect exposure. Shallow depth of field may work in the eyes of one viewer and work less well in the eyes of another viewer. I have seen images criticized for showing to little or too much motion blur. Again, our personal tastes will impact how we review images.

Dan mentioned some of the "rules" one finds in bird photography. There are similar views when it comes to landscapes, portraiture, architecture, macro photography, sports photography, etc. I have seen judges resort to some of these "rules" in cases where they might not have been relevant.

So congratulations on wishing to avoid personal preferences when critiquing work, but I have found that our own personal feelings, experiences and views can and will show up when we evaluate an image.

[Acorn]

There will always be an element of subjectivity in any evaluation, regardless of how objective we try to be. A person who is not comfortable with spiders will likely have some built-in biases when he or she looks at an image of a spider, regardless of how well the photographer has executed the image. Someone who has a fairly socially conservative outlook may have a built-in bias against nudes.

One would think that we can avoid biases evaluating an image from a technical standpoint; correct exposure, appropriate depth of field and appropriate shutter speed all seem to be fairly straight forward. Moody lighting might be viewed as incorrect exposure. Shallow depth of field may work in the eyes of one viewer and work less well in the eyes of another viewer. I have seen images criticized for showing to little or too much motion blur. Again, our personal tastes will impact how we review images.

Dan mentioned some of the "rules" one finds in bird photography. There are similar views when it comes to landscapes, portraiture, architecture, macro photography, sports photography, etc. I have seen judges resort to some of these "rules" in cases where they might not have been relevant.

So congratulations on wishing to avoid personal preferences when critiquing work, but I have found that our own personal feelings, experiences and views can and will show up when we evaluate an image.

I have found that wildlife is a particular area where a lot of judges are deficient in nature knowledge and don't understand what's happening in a picture. Looking back, one of my nature pictures was up for judging and showed a gannet with beak full of dried grasses it was gathering at a cliff top. The title of the picture was "Nesting Time," but the judge threw it out because it did not show the nest. I ask you!

[pnodrog]

Sort of on the subject.

Last year I was judging an interclub competition. All the images were sent to me in advance and on the night I knew I had to be relatively brief with my comments so I put all the marking on a spread sheet that I gave a copy of to all the clubs so their members not at the event could get some feedback. It was basically an experiment as I had never tried to quantify my critique before. Each photo was to be marked out of 10. Overall it worked fairly well but the only judging I have done since then has been on the spot and off the cuff so I have not developed this approach any further.

Below is an example of how each image was assessed.

Note the reverse order for distractions - spots. Each column was given 2,1,0 marks (sometimes a half mark) and the total was divided by 2 to give a possible 10. The second look mark was an overall assessment of the image a few days after the initial marking.
P.S. The subject being judged was "Framed"



Below part of the result sheets with my comments.

[Manfred M]

I have found that wildlife is a particular area where a lot of judges are deficient in nature knowledge and don't understand what's happening in a picture. Looking back, one of my nature pictures was up for judging and showed a gannet with beak full of dried grasses it was gathering at a cliff top. The title of the picture was "Nesting Time," but the judge threw it out because it did not show the nest. I ask you!

I find that part of the issue is that judges are often commercial photographers who specialize in photographing people, so that is where their strength lies. They often have limited knowledge of other genres, so issues like these do happen.

One simple solution is to have all the entries pre-screened for being "on topic". The instructions to the judges are then to not worry about whether the entry is on topic or not, as someone else has already done so. Unfortunately, this step is missing in most competitions so the judges do end up making ill-informed calls.

I've seen this go both ways; in one case during a competition I was judging, the judge gave a decent but not great image a very high score simply because the image was hard to take. In the competitions I have judged, there are always three judges, so extremely high or low scores do receive some level of mitigation.

[rpcrowe]

Syllabus From Critiquing 101

If you like it, it is good! If you don't like it, it is not good

[billtils]

Syllabus From Critiquing 101

If you like it, it is good! If you don't like it, it is not good

Some years back I took a 10 week on line Open University course on photography. One of the early modules had excellent advice on how to critique an image, which is very close to what Richard suggests.

Step 1: Do you like it
Step 2: Why do you like it or not like it
Step 2a: Consider the composition (for example, framing, are there distracting elements present)
Step 2b: Consider technical elements (for example, sharpness, colour, exposure)
Step 3: If it's one of yours, adjust as suggested by Steps 2a and b, then repeat.

There was of course, much more detail in steps 2a and b, but I want to respect the original and you can't see it unless you sign up to the course.