should one judge other's photos?

[Alan Edward Klein]

Very strange thread after the first post in 2003.

But, when 'judging' someone's photograph, I like to start out with a question something along the lines of, "Why did you make this?" Then I can them him/her if they have reached that goal with this particular audience of one or not (me)...and offer suggestions on creating a stronger impact or reaction from their viewers, if so desired.

Alan -- if one knows nothing of the sport, how can one tell if a skater has made no mistakes (other than perhaps the judges have given a perfect score)?

when they do things s like a triple axel, and land smoothly and keep skating, then it;s pretty perfect. You see when they make a mistake. They trip or it looks staccato. Also, you can tell when someone's skating naturally, the flow is just right. It's just when a non-photographer can pick out a great photo. Aesthetics are inborn. Sure, there might be little techniques known only to the experts. But for general skating as in photography, you don't need to be an expert to see grace, beauty, and talent.

 

[Sean]

Is it just me? -- reading down this necro-thread is like scrambled eggs, there are signature lines not matching the poster and all sorts of seemingly unrelated stuff up there!

That said, I tend not to offer much in the way of commentary unless it's asked for. Sure, nothing wrong with an occasional "like" or "I like the mood of that sky" or state something about a particular element that catches my attention in a picture. But I freely admit I don't have the 'art school' chops or inclination to do serious critiques, especially unsolicited.

It looks like some really old threads never imported correctly over the years as we upgraded and changed platforms.

 

[Don_ih]

But for general skating as in photography, you don't need to be an expert to see grace, beauty, and talent

What you're saying is true but it leads to only being able to say "That looks nice" or similar. However, for both skating and photography, the more you experience (as a viewer), the more you will come to know. Eventually, when reviewing the "nice" performance you watched long before, you may suddenly see many that the performance was actually average or below. Or perhaps you will have your initial impression reaffirmed. At any rate, greater exposure leads to greater understanding and a greater ability to articulate.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What you're saying is true but it leads to only being able to say "That looks nice" or similar. However, for both skating and photography, the more you experience (as a viewer), the more you will come to know. Eventually, when reviewing the "nice" performance you watched long before, you may suddenly see many that the performance was actually average or below. Or perhaps you will have your initial impression reaffirmed. At any rate, greater exposure leads to greater understanding and a greater ability to articulate.

I don't know how to rate skating, however, I have watched contests before so you do get to see the difference in performances. Similarly, most people have seen thousands of photos. So they know what's attractive to them, what catches their eye.

But just like I don't have to know the rules of skating to appreciate a good job, I don't need to know the rules of photography either to appreciate a great photo. Of course, experience and knowledge does give one knowledge to articulate the good and bad features better. In some ways, a non-photographer can give better suggestions. I've noticed from local contests I entered and from other photographers in my club, we get caught up on the same "rules" to distinguish good and bad photos missing the most important things like content. The non-photographer goes right to the heart of the picture. It either gives him pleasure because of something special in it or it doesn't. He doesn't get caught up in the minutiae we often do that distracts us from the good picture. We become pixel peepers, developer chemists, and grain specialists and tend to focus on the inconsequential details because we're "so smart". Me too.

 

[Chan Tran]

Aside from technical considerations, how valid is it to suggest changes to someone else's images? Isn't that just saying, "Your vision is flawed. My vision is superior?"

Isn't all we can say, "My vision matches your vision of a particular image and therefore I like it," or "My vision does not match your vision of this image and therefore I think it can be improved to more closely match what I think it should look like,"?

Even some technical issues are personal. For example, for a particular image, some people prefer a darker printing treatment, some like grain, soft contrast, filed neg carriers, blur, or even out-of-focus subjects.

(BTW, I'm not posting this as a response to anyone's criticism of my images, this post was brought about by my examination of my desire to critique others' images.)

It does make me feel good when people whose photos I like, also like mine, but it could well be that a particular image resonates in me due to my peculiar history/experiences/influences that leaves someone else unstirred. That does not make it an unsuccessful image, unless the only reason I took it was to have others like it.

Anyone have views on this topic?

Frank S.

I wouldn't suggest anything. I do not comment on other's photos even when asked.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I don't know what history of photography or image creation would have anything to do with a critique. Even in a documentary photography I see little reason to connect the two, except when a comment has nothing to do with how it looks but only relates to what it shows.

The saying "have to know the rules to break them" has also long lost a lot of meaning since the advent of digital capture.

One can be an art graduate and make nothing but generic images, another, one completely green in art theory, yet pulling out visual gems time after time.

If one asks for a comment, and another feels compelled to do so, no problem. Unsolicited comments are a different story. We're long past the times when compositional conformity was required for a higher recognition. An image can have impact on one viewer and none on another. Tastes are all over the place, a complete chaos. If one needs to sell an image, he surely needs to know his audience, which usually means sucking it up to specific tastes and often (at least) compromising own. So to this end, criticizing ones works without knowing who and what was behind its creation, is little more than trying to be the wiser.

One caveat of evaluating seen quality on computer monitor is the already mentioned uneven calibration, more important in color, but not meaningless in B&W either.

With that said, it could be fun game at times to start a discussion on one's image and see where it goes. Open talk, gloves off, go at it and make a point. Take that frame, re-compose (-crop), repost and see where the argument goes.

OP from 2003 was right asking the question though.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You don't have to be an expert to say if you like a photo or not and what you like about it. An engaging photo with great content and lighting is appreciated by most people. Do you have to be a composer to enjoy good music? I was watching this 15 year-old Russian ice skater. She was amazing. I know nothing about the sport. But you can see she was smooth, relaxed, perfect, and graceful, with no mistakes.

Many comment on photographs who do not know what they are talking about. I said, if you do not know how to help and improve, then do not add comments because those comments are useless noise.

Saying it is nice is noise.
Saying it [assuming it is a black & white print] needs pop, may be noise, instead saying it needs pot which can be added by using this bleach in that way to these specific areas is not noise, it helps the photographer.

 

[Dr. no]

Aside from technical considerations, how valid is it to suggest changes to someone else's images? Isn't that just saying, "Your vision is flawed. My vision is superior?"

Isn't all we can say, "My vision matches your vision of a particular image and therefore I like it," or "My vision does not match your vision of this image and therefore I think it can be improved to more closely match what I think it should look like,"?

Even some technical issues are personal. For example, for a particular image, some people prefer a darker printing treatment, some like grain, soft contrast, filed neg carriers, blur, or even out-of-focus subjects.

(BTW, I'm not posting this as a response to anyone's criticism of my images, this post was brought about by my examination of my desire to critique others' images.)

It does make me feel good when people whose photos I like, also like mine, but it could well be that a particular image resonates in me due to my peculiar history/experiences/influences that leaves someone else unstirred. That does not make it an unsuccessful image, unless the only reason I took it was to have others like it.

Anyone have views on this topic?

Frank S.

What a fascinating thread!
Aside from the forum migration "scrambled eggs"...
Frank started by asking about judging vision, and specifically excluded technical issues. In a forum like this there is a lot of time spent on chemistry and technique (where else can you do that?), but vision is harder to really comment on while at the same time is more compelling. Short of technical examples of "look at my bokeh" or grain size comparison, I think every picture posted here (or Flickr) is an example of someone's vision, but whether that translates to anyone else is the question that defines art (to me, anyway).
I live in a city with a really high per capita concentration of art galleries and artists. I have a high standard of judgement for looking at art that is displayed for sale--just as I would for electronics, building materials, pharmaceuticals or anything else offered in exchange for valuta. I think, and often express, that you should master the technical aspects of your medium before seriously displaying it, but (this is nothing new in 2022) anyone with a "vision" and a friend with a gallery seems to have a venue.
Sharing this opinion with a friend who has been a successful sculptor for decades (talk about mastering technical details), he gently reprimanded me with his defining question of art: "Is it effective?"
As practitioners of an art, we are each qualified to comment on at least some technical details of a piece. As audience, we are entitled to judge whether the piece communicates anything to us. And sometimes (often) that message is simply "here's something that's pretty to look at". It is, of course, another matter whether we say anything out loud about it...

 

[MattKing]

In relation to the original subject of the thread, I would say that:
1) as a photographer, and a believer in the idea that photography is a communicative process, I am always interested in how others respond to my my photographs. For that reason, I'm not uncomfortable telling other photographers about my response to their work;
2) if asked, I'll provide a critique, although I prefer to respond to more specific requests (does X detract, and would you suggest Y);
3) I try not to judge!

 

[ic-racer]

And if a photo wasn’t “based on historically recognized photographic movements and images”?

??

 

[Pieter12]

Many comment on photographs who do not know what they are talking about. I said, if you do not know how to help and improve, then do not add comments because those comments are useless noise.

I don't say anything unless asked to, and even then I might not give my true opinion. It depends on the audience. Most of what I see in galleries and online is shit, slavish mimicking or boring pablum. A lot of what is out there in the world today is either overworked or has an axe to grind, be it political, psychological or social. I really don't care about your family and pet photos on that merit alone. For me it has to be a good photograph first, damn the reason it was taken.

 

[DonJ]

??

You said you critiqued work “based on historically recognized photographic movements and images”. What did you do when a student submitted an image that wasn’t “based on historically recognized photographic movements and images”?

 

[Pieter12]

I don't believe he said the critique was based on historically recognized photographic images and movements, but that he expected the photography student to be familiar with them. Very different.

 

[DonJ]

I don't believe he said the critique was based on historically recognized photographic images and movements, but that he expected the photography student to be familiar with them. Very different.

Perhaps I misunderstood:

“When I was teaching I was strict and judgmental with students; I expected them to be 'well read' with respect to photographic and art history and critiqued work based on historically recognized photographic movements and images.”

 

[Vaughn]

You said you critiqued work “based on historically recognized photographic movements and images”. What did you do when a student submitted an image that wasn’t “based on historically recognized photographic movements and images”?

Contrast and compare, of course. To discover in what way the image was not “based on historically recognized photographic movements and images”.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Many comment on photographs who do not know what they are talking about. I said, if you do not know how to help and improve, then do not add comments because those comments are useless noise.

Saying it is nice is noise.
Saying it [assuming it is a black & white print] needs pop, may be noise, instead saying it needs pot which can be added by using this bleach in that way to these specific areas is not noise, it helps the photographer.

So because I don't have a darkroom, I can't say it needs "pop", that it's flat and boring? I have to tell the guy how to add bleach? That doesn't make sense. Let him figure out how to add bleach to make it "pop". I'm giving aesthetics opinions. That opens the comments to non-photographers as well. Otherwise, we think we're superior to others and also, we become pixel peepers caught up in technical rather than aesthetics.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What a fascinating thread!
Aside from the forum migration "scrambled eggs"...
Frank started by asking about judging vision, and specifically excluded technical issues. In a forum like this there is a lot of time spent on chemistry and technique (where else can you do that?), but vision is harder to really comment on while at the same time is more compelling. Short of technical examples of "look at my bokeh" or grain size comparison, I think every picture posted here (or Flickr) is an example of someone's vision, but whether that translates to anyone else is the question that defines art (to me, anyway).
I live in a city with a really high per capita concentration of art galleries and artists. I have a high standard of judgement for looking at art that is displayed for sale--just as I would for electronics, building materials, pharmaceuticals or anything else offered in exchange for valuta. I think, and often express, that you should master the technical aspects of your medium before seriously displaying it, but (this is nothing new in 2022) anyone with a "vision" and a friend with a gallery seems to have a venue.
Sharing this opinion with a friend who has been a successful sculptor for decades (talk about mastering technical details), he gently reprimanded me with his defining question of art: "Is it effective?"
As practitioners of an art, we are each qualified to comment on at least some technical details of a piece. As audience, we are entitled to judge whether the piece communicates anything to us. And sometimes (often) that message is simply "here's something that's pretty to look at". It is, of course, another matter whether we say anything out loud about it...

!00% right. Technical is relatively easy. It's vision that's hard.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In relation to the original subject of the thread, I would say that:
1) as a photographer, and a believer in the idea that photography is a communicative process, I am always interested in how others respond to my my photographs. For that reason, I'm not uncomfortable telling other photographers about my response to their work;
2) if asked, I'll provide a critique, although I prefer to respond to more specific requests (does X detract, and would you suggest Y);
3) I try not to judge!

Matt, I think when you critique, you judge. Maybe you meant to not insult, like "your photo looks like crap."

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

IMHO, we all judge photos. For me, there is the public and private forums. When I judge in private, lets say with a friends or family, I'm more honest. But if it's in the public, I'll only say things that are positive and encouraging. Judging photos are really more about me than the truth what ever that is. I remember in college, I didn't like the work of Richard Avedon. After a few decades and being open to seeing his shows, I come to understand better and love his work. I think as I get older, my understanding of photography gets a bit deeper. I'm attracted to photographers that photograph in their own voice and less attracted to work that is trendy and tries too hard to grab by attention. Anyway, what does my opinion matter anyway? All I could do is to encourage other photographers to do their work. Photography just as life is bigger than myself.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, I think when you critique, you judge. Maybe you meant to not insult, like "your photo looks like crap."

To my mind, judging means something different than critiquing.
Because judging involves at least some component of valuing or ranking.
A critique should not do that - it should be more of an observation and discussion. It should evaluate.
A judge issues scores, a critique should never do that.

 

[Vaughn]

To judge:"To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration."
In other words, critiquing.

 

[MattKing]

To judge: "decide the results of (a competition).".
It is that meaning which I am referring to.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well, there might be two areas of critiquing or judging. There's the technical such as the horizon isn;t straight, the exposure is too light, etc. Technical I think is easier to give, easier to correct, and easier to take.

Then there's the aesthetic such as "I don;t see a subject", or the subject is uninteresting, it's not doing anything. The second can hurt. It goes to the heart of the photographer's ability to have a vision that excites the viewer. It can be very individual. What I like might not be something you care about. You really can be stepping on toes with this kind of judging.

 

[MattKing]

Then there's the aesthetic such as "I don;t see a subject", or the subject is uninteresting, it's not doing anything.

Judging or critiquing isn't always negative you know.
The best critiques refer to successes as much or more than they do failures. They also refer to asperations, and make suggestions.
They also often draw the photographer's attention to strengths that the photographer may have overlooked.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, there might be two areas of critiquing or judging. There's the technical such as the horizon isn;t straight, the exposure is too light, etc. Technical I think is easier to give, easier to correct, and easier to take.

Then there's the aesthetic such as "I don;t see a subject", or the subject is uninteresting, it's not doing anything. The second can hurt. It goes to the heart of the photographer's ability to have a vision that excites the viewer. It can be very individual. What I like might not be something you care about. You really can be stepping on toes with this kind of judging.

."

Only proved positive comments or comments on how to improve, but in a positive tone.

Always be positive. "If you cannot say something nice, do not say anything at all."