Giving feedback/criticism on photographs, please share your methodology

[MARTIE]

I would very much appreciate any insights others my have on sharing feedback/criticism on photographs. I’m looking for a relatively simple framework or methodology that would work in a group dynamic.
Many thanks,
Martie

 

[mgb74]

Perhaps a matter of semantics, but I don't criticize, frank or otherwise. To give criticism implies I know what's right and the creator of the photo does not. I will say what I like, or ask a question (like why did you choose this level of contrast), or in a few cases say what I would have done. But that's not to say I'm right and they're wrong.

So, in a group dynamic, it's about exploring what choices (composition, exposure, contrast, etc) others would have made to allow the creator of the photograph to decide whether he/she feels those choices add or detract from the photograph.

An exemption to this are technical details (for example, in or out of focus) that can more easily be put in a right vs. wrong category.

 

[Arklatexian]

Perhaps a matter of semantics, but I don't criticize, frank or otherwise. To give criticism implies I know what's right and the creator of the photo does not. I will say what I like, or ask a question (like why did you choose this level of contrast), or in a few cases say what I would have done. But that's not to say I'm right and they're wrong.

So, in a group dynamic, it's about exploring what choices (composition, exposure, contrast, etc) others would have made to allow the creator of the photograph to decide whether he/she feels those choices add or detract from the photograph.

An exemption to this are technical details (for example, in or out of focus) that can more easily be put in a right vs. wrong category.

If I ask someone to "critique" one of my prints, it does not mean that I think they know more than I do. It means that I value their opinion. After all, "opinion" is all I am going to get whether I value it or not. It doesn't take very long to find out if they know more than I but that would not be why I asked for the critique.........Regards!

 

[jimjm]

Wholeheartedly agree with the advice given above. I prefer to treat these activities at learning/critique for the photographer and the audience. Don't take it too seriously, egos left at the door and everyone will learn something new.
I was president of a local club here for several years, and was invited to critique work for other clubs during that time. I prefer this to "judging" competitions, as I think the best reason to voice an opinion of someone else's photography is to help them improve, if possible, and to learn about another photographer's thought process. I learned a lot from looking at other people's photography and giving them an opportunity to talk about it.

1. For everyone, there are technical aspects of photography that can be learned and improved upon. I have had several prints that I was able to greatly improve after tips from several members on how to crop/compose, etc. One of those photos won a year-end competition, and it was only because I was receptive to the advice of people who I respected.
2. If you're the one doing the critique, try to understand the intent of the person who made the photo. Were they successful in conveying the message they wanted to communicate? What technical or artistic choices could have been made to make the image more successful? Sometimes photos can be all about "mood" and the technical details don't matter. If this is the case, point this out and let the photographer know whether they succeeded in doing this.
3. Make a point never to "criticize" another person's photography. Emphasize the aspects that are successful in the image and try to provide guidance on how it can be more effective to the audience, if that is what the artist is open to hearing.
4. Ultimately, anyone who wants to show their photos to another person is just trying to communicate thru photography. Many of us can't paint or write music, so this is how we express ourselves to the rest of the world. For the tech geeks, photography may also serve to satisfy other needs as well.
5. Try to leave your personal taste or subject preference out of the critique. I've seen more than one professional photographer or judge dismiss a photo because that wasn't their "type" of photography. They didn't want to comment on it because they didn't understand it or couldn't be bothered to think outside their box. No kidding, one of our invited guest judges even showed up to a meeting drunk. Good photographer - bad choices...

In-person group photo critiques are a lot of fun. I really miss participating in them, as online critiques are just not the same. I know several "novice" photographers who improved greatly over the time of just a few years. They were open to the respectful suggestions of others, and were willing to pass on that knowledge whenever they had the opportunity.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

The only group critique sessions I was involved with were in a college photography course where the instructor also had a psychology degree.

He would lead the discussions by asking what we thought a particular photographs meaning was, or if we thought the photographers intent was evident, etc. Whoever took the photograph wasn't allowed to say anything until everyone who had something to say had their chance to speak. Sometimes technical things would come up, but only in the context of what we thought the photos meaning was.

It was an effective way to learn how to really look at photographs, and to be thoughtful while taking/making them.

We were lucky to have the instructor we had, and the group worked well together. Could be risky if egos are too sensitive or if someone is a blow-hard know-it-all.

 

[ic-racer]

What I learned in art school was the foundation for art criticism is the reputability of the critic.

 

[MARTIE]

My thanks for all of your comments.

 

[Ian Grant]

Someone asked a similar question a few years ago, wanting criticism however they couldn't take it.

I have no issue taking or giving criticism, having said that I'm my own harshest critic which most people find hard. There's two sides the technical and the artistic, the first is could you have done better what issues are there. The second is harder and more personal but amounts to does the image say what you intended (to say visually).

The crunch time is when you have to write a dissertation about your own work, that was part of my MA (Masters) in Photography but before taht you do similar for a photographer of your own choice.

A book worth reading is "Achieving Photographic Style" Michael Freeman, it looks at many well known photographers (of its time) and how they worked, it's an oldish book maybe late 1980's but nothings changed. The key is good work is project based regardless of style although that's not actual stated in so many words. Many styles are covered and there's no suggestion any is better than others, but it does make you think.

There's also an opposite to criticism, and that's exhibiting and also standing in front of an audience and contextualising your images, it's easy if you're confident in the images you are making. That's the goal you aim for

Ian

 

[dpurdy]

I always remember that the photo is to some degree successful for the maker or he wouldn't be sharing it. So I first try to figure out what is good about it and then decide if my negative criticism is useful. In camera clubs, in my experience, the maker of the photo first talks about it, saying what why and how he did it. That is very helpful.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Describing...what you see.
Analising...the relationships between what you saw.
Interpreting...the meaning of the work.
Evaluating...making a personal judgement about the artwork.

I use this for art and photography classes that I teach. It's quite difficult getting high school students to speak about theirs and others work.

 

[removed account4]

great advice but sometimes its hard to give some sort of meaningful critique without knowing where the person was coming from ( the person meaning the person who made the photographs &c ). for example if it is a photograph that has to do with IDK puppies and how cute and playful they are, but the photographs you were given to look at were all of the making of a ham and cheese sandwich, ... while the photographs might be absolutely beautiful, dye transfer or 22 layers of gum over platinum, like they were made by irving penn ... unless of course the sandwich is a metaphore for the puppy then its all good.

 

[jtk]

Minor White suggested that if you, the viewer, dislike a photo strongly it means that the photo is feeding something within you...opposite to a strong positive response.

Both responses are significant but you may learn more from the negative.

Minor, a Buddhist (etc), was into questions more than answers...unlike many teachers.