DSLRUsers.com

After seeing the Masterchef series, I realised that a good food critique doesn't have to be a chef at all... or so they say.


So, to be a good photography critique,

1. Do you have to a good photographer?

2. Can a newbie photographer critique an experienced one?

3. Do you even have to be a photographer at all?

Excellent question. If one critics based on knowledge and skill set, then it probably helps that they have an understanding of photography. Now if it were art...

good question.

I think it's no different to any other field or profession. A plumber may be the best person to fix a leak but not necessarily the best person to tell you which taps look the best in your bathroom. Same in photography, if you're going to critique any technical aspect of a photo, then you'd better have some photographic knowledge as for aestetics, anyone is entitled to their opinion.

Another interesting question that I am sure will lead to some interesting discussion.

A photo critic should def have an understanding of the technique, but also have a good eye for asthetics. But that is my thoughts. No a critic does not have to be a photographer

I think criticism is one of the most powerful ways of communication, to be a good photo critique takes practice of communicating these emotions towards the subject, in this case, a photograph or a photographer. But, anyone and everyone is a photo critic, those who look at self portraits and go awesome! and others that will look at it and go, " Blow highlights here, shadow covering the face here, face needs liquifying, colors are too warm etc..

All in all, I don't think it's the photographic skill of a critic that matters the most, it's their ability to communicate what they feel about an image, aesthetically and technically.

What a wonderful discussion Suren!

So, to be a good photography critique,

1. Do you have to a good photographer?

2. Can a newbie photographer critique an experienced one?

3. Do you even have to be a photographer at all?

1.Nope, well I hope not

2. sure why not?

3. Definitely not - some of teh best critique I have gotten is from non-photographers

I personally think anyone of any level is suitable to critique, to simply rule out a slice of the population based on experience, age, non-photographer or other aspect basically closes or shuts out alot of views.

I think putting your image in the right place to be critiqued and also possibly specifying what aspect to be critiqued is more helpful. For example if you sell images to teh general public, maybe landscapes, would you only want critique from professional landscape togs? I say no, I would want critique from teh people buying the product. So many of teh general public will look at a image and go 'hmm nice, i want that on my wall' but it may have a crooked horizon or not be technically perfect., whereas as pros would probably go nah thats crap and newbie cause the horizon is crooked, no ones gonna buy that!

Maybe knowing what aspects of your image are lacking and then asking specifically for views on those aspect would also be helpful to provide good feedback.

To be a good critique, imo, simply means spending more than 3 seconds looking at the image and giving a response that reflects your experience, your view, your feeling towards the image, a response that tells the photographer how and why (if at all) the image relates to you and what works for you...

Sometimes I come back and look multiple times over a day or two - the first impression is important, but also giving the brain time to digest teh visual experience aso helps, and for me, often leads to better critique.

No
Yes
No

I see critique on two levels
1 - the technical critique ...and yes knowledge is power in the never ending quest for perfection , this is respect between peers
2 - the artistic critique ...everyone knows what they do, and do not like, and if they can express the reasons then I think that's great info - this is about likability and acceptance amongst peers

At the end of the day every opinion, irrespective of source is valuable, and we are ultimately responsible for what we listen to and decide to adopt, I hope I never stop listening.

And there are simply days when the best critique for me is my son simply telling me he loves 'my work' - simply because it makes me feel good to have someone love what I do and encourages me to do more.
DebT

The answer is probably not, but it helps. Let me ask you this question: What opinion would influence you more about your health that of a friend’s who reads the family medical encyclopaedia or your own doctor’s?

We all enjoy listening to Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton (ABC TV) arguing on whether to give this movie one or five star, but this is only a matter of opinion and taste. Their judgement does not have a sound benchmark criteria as in the case of a TAFE/University lecturer that is accountable to the photography student and the academic board for his/her decision on failing that student.

Let me bring the discussion closer to home. I value the constructive criticism you make about my photography because I know you all take photographs and in most all cases I see your work, which is by and large equal and better than mine. Therefore, your critiques can and do influence me. However, there are friends, who I know seldom take photographs even with their point and shoot camera, that also see my work and make comments on my photography, but their opinions is not and influent as yours.

surenj wrote:So, to be a good photography critique,

1. Do you have to a good photographer?
2. Can a newbie photographer critique an experienced one?
3. Do you even have to be a photographer at all?

I've been associated with the Canberra Photographic Society for about 30 years (apart from a break of 12 or 13 years after I got bored with the chemical darkroom) and for my active period I have in almost all years been Competition Director or President. We have competitions every month and have judges who are either commercial photographers, academic photographers or artists. So I've observed a lot of judges over that time.

1. Logically the answer is No. However, in practice the answer is usually Yes or at least it helps. Unless you are a good photographer you are unlikely to understand the "language" of photography including say quality of printing, depth of field, selective focus, sharpening, tonality, even composition. Because realisation of vision is the most important criterion, logically any good artist should be able to be a good judge. Often, though, where the artist has no photographic background, their artistic perspective is not sufficient. Conversely, though, sometimes commercial photographers and even academic photographers may not make good judges because their preconceptions may blinker their approach to either adventurous or conservative images.

2. Yes and no. Individually, sometimes no, because going out and taking photographs helps you to see. Being able to see what is there and what you can extract to a good image is related to discerning the difference a really good image and what might have been a good image. Collectively, perhaps less of an issue.

3. It usually helps (refer answer to one). The worst situation is just showing photographs to friends and family where they all say "isn't that wonderful" whatever you do and you won't learn very much from that.

4. I think the only sustainable approach is to listen carefully to all comments and if necessary believe none. If you get comments on your work by a selection of eminent judges they will often say completely different things which may not be compatible with each other. Therefore, while it is good to listen to what others say, the only opinion that finally matters is your own.