The 'How To' stuff:

From dpchallenge.com; "Critique for Dummies - A Practical Guide" by John M. Setzler, Jr:

"What is a Critique?

Critique comes in many forms, but in a nutshell, it’s the opinion of the giver. A critique is a simple description of the photo based on the viewer’s personality and background. This description could include a lot of different topics, which we will discuss in this guide.

Before we can discuss how to critique a photograph, I think it’s important to know how to look at a photograph. It’s important to try to understand what you see in a photo before you try to give feedback on it.

How to Look at a Photograph

It sounds simple enough, but it’s more complex than you might think. Here’s a breakdown of my own workflow for looking at a photograph. I wish I had some flowcharting software to create a graphic for this, but it’s not really that complex.

Do you like the photo?

This part isn’t usually too complicated to figure out. In most cases, you either like what you see or you don’t. The photo will stimulate you visually, emotionally or maybe even both. The stimulation may be good or bad and that will determine whether or not you like what you see. The photographer’s choice of subject may or may not appeal to you. You may or may not like the way they chose to photograph it. There are a lot of smaller elements of the image that will determine whether or not the image appeals to you. Sorting out these elements is what builds your critique.

What is the subject?

What is the photographer trying to show you in the photo? What inspired the photographer to choose this subject? Does the subject interest you in any particular way? Was the photographer successful in showing you the subject?

Is this photo spontaneous or set up?

It’s very important to make this distinction whenever possible. I usually hold the two types of photos to different standards. A spontaneous photo may have certain qualities that make me look less at certain aspects of the image. When a photographer has complete control of the subject environment, I am less forgiving than when the photographer is working in a spontaneous mode. In a set up environment, I look for lighting and other technical aspects that enhance the subject’s appearance. Technical excellence is important when the photographer has complete control. In a spontaneous environment, I look to see how effectively the photographer portrayed the subject, and if it’s as good as it could be in the given circumstances. I also try to note different circumstances that could produce something stronger. I can’t possibly know everything about those circumstances other than what I can see within the image. This brings us to the topic of assumptions, which we will discuss later.

What is the environment?

The subject of the photo may not fill the entire frame. Is the subject’s environment pleasing? Is it supportive of the subject? Are there distractions in the frame? Are there objects that are competing for attention? In a controlled environment, everything seen in the image should have a purpose, whether it is the subject of the photo, or something supportive of the subject. In an uncontrolled environment, extra items in the field of view should not be competing for attention with the subject. Keep in mind that a photo may have multiple subjects or a group of objects that create the subject.

What’s the mood of the photo?

Does the photo stir your senses? Does the photo make you wonder about something? Does it make you ask yourself questions? Does it inspire you? Does it make you feel good? Does it make you feel somber? Does the photo help you to know the subject?

Now we have established a few important bits of information about the photo we are reviewing. We know whether or not we like what we see. We know what the subject is and what the photographer is trying to show us. We know that the photo is either spontaneous or set up. We have also considered the environment in which the photo was made.

Where do we go from here?

There are four more basic areas of critique to observe after we have reached this point. These areas are creativity, composition, post processing, and technical aspects.

Creativity:

Did the photographer take any creative steps to make this photograph interesting to the viewer? Some elements of creativity may include camera angle or perspective, exposure technique, and effective use of lighting. This aspect of the image is usually where good photographers are separated from great ones. We have all seen photos certain subjects, but a great photographer will show it to us in an inspiring way.

Composition:

Is the image composed in an appealing way? Does the eye come to rest on the subject or a specific area of the image? Your personal understanding of composition will dictate what you can and can’t say about it in a critique.

Post Processing:

Post processing of a photograph is a definite target for critique. This is one area where the photographer has total control of everything. In general, photos branch into two categories where post processing is concerned. There are those where you don’t notice the post processing and those where you do. Post processing is quite subjective. Everyone has his own opinion on how it should be done. In a critique, you might want to discuss the “why” questions. Post processing choices are deliberate ones made by the photographer. There is some reason behind it, or there should be. If you can’t determine the reason or don’t agree with it, it’s a good point for critique.

Technicals:

In my opinion, the technical aspects of a photo, such as depth of field, focus, shutter speeds, and exposure don’t come into play until after the viewer has decided whether or not he likes the photo. In most types of photography, the technical items are not what the photographer is trying to show you. They have presented you with a subject or subjects and their technical choices should be supportive of those subjects as much as possible. Some photographers choose to make the technical aspects of their photo the subject in some cases. These photos have to be treated differently. You should just look at those images and see if you can understand what they are showing you and why they chose to do it.

Assumptions:

Everyone knows the old saying about assumptions. Making an assumption in a critique is simply a bad idea. One of the most common assumption mistakes I see in critiques is when a different view or camera angle is suggested. We have no way of knowing what a photo would look like from a different perspective, so we should never suggest it. Critique what you see. The only assumption you should ever make in a critique is that everything you see is intentional, whether it actually is or not. If you think something you see isn’t intentional, you should critique it as intentional. Tell the photographer that you do or don’t like his choice. If it is actually a mistake, the photographer will know and learn from it.

Who is qualified to critique?

Everyone is qualified to critique. No matter how much or little you know about photography, you can always tell if you like a photo when you look at it. If you aren’t comfortable with certain aspects of a critique, just leave them out and talk about what you know!

How to receive a critique:

Critiques are opinions and nothing more. They are reflections of the people giving them. You should never argue or complain about a critique. You will either agree with it or you won’t. When you post a photo to a public forum for critique, you must be prepared to hear the worst-case scenarios as well as the educated critiques. If you are sensitive about your photos, posting them online is not a good idea. Don’t expect everyone to share your sentiments about any given photo. Photography is supposed to be fun. Don’t let negative critiques change your own opinion of your work. Have a good time."



Some other thoughts on how to approach critiquing an image from ehow.com:

"Step 1: First look at the composition or content in the photograph. What is the center of interest in the picture? Where did the photographer place it in the frame? Did the photographer get close enough to the subject to include only what is important, or are there wasted parts of the picture with elements that do not add to the message of the photo?

Step 2: Next, observe the background in the photograph. How did the photographer represent the background in regards to focus and depth of field? How does the background add or distract from the message of the photo?

Step 3: Now take a look at the technical camera work involved in the photograph. Is the subjects sharp and clearly in focus? Is the photo exposed properly? A properly exposed photo will have some texture in the shadows. Are details missing because of over or under exposure?

Step 4: Then look at the craftsmanship the photographer exhibits. Does the physical photo have spots, stains, or scratches? Is it placed nicely in a frame or elaborately displayed? Is there evidence that the photograph was made with care in the process?

Step 5: Finally, offer your own personal feelings on the photograph. What do you like about the selected subject? Is it an emotional shot, a story, a statement, a humorous photo? What would you do differently if you had the chance to take the same photograph?"



Practical examples and some follow-up edits:

Post-Standard staff photographer Jennifer Meyers critiqued some of the photos submitted in the "Celebrate the Seasons" photo contest sponsored by "The Good Life, Central New York" magazine.

"Honest photo critiques designed to help people learn better photo skills" by Scott Bourne of scottcritiques.com.

wow! that took some reading Les! lol! You have included everything possible that should be taken into consideration when critiqueing a photograph - I hope I learned some lessons - I just wish I had your analytical mind! ;)

It would seem that this same criteria is also used by the mods when they move an image to the permanent galleries and no doubt their choices are also based on what 'moves' them about a certain subject, but I would think that public appeal of the image as a wallpaper is the primary consideration.

In looking through those galleries back to the very lowest C index scores, I find mostly artistically 'appealing' images, with just a few exceptions, that mostly meet the above criteria for composition, camera work, etc.

It would be great if every wonderful image could be entered into the perms, but storage space is probably a major factor in just how many get there too.

Thank you for the above recommendations on how to critique, Les. I intend to read them over again.

Les: A fine commitment and dedication to a rather critical aspect of art and the ongoing health of this site.
To appreciate art fully one really does need to critique properly, using all the tecniques suggested above.
By critiqueing we also learn about ourselves and our art. e.g I am critiqueing myself when I view this work...
Do not be harmful in your comments as they will affect your work as well.
Use the critique to engage your thought process and develope your own visionary style.
Thanks for the reminder Les...

MMM, just had another thought as I was reading this after coming over from the "sameness" thread. What if we came up with a way for posters to indicate on each upload what kind of feedback they wanted? I know some of us actually encourage genuine critique in our comments but what if that was a conscious choice each person who uploads had to make, via three or four buttons/ticks at the uploading stage. I know I've given honest, what I thought was even handed critique on occasion and had the person get all sniffy with me for not just saying, "nice photo". Some of us want encouragement, some want something a bit more challenging. I like both. :) So if each time I got to a photo I could see that the artist wanted genuine critique or not, that would make it easier for me to do and easier for all those who only want encouraging comments. I'll probably post this idea on the thread I came from as well.
Mikel.

OH, and the article up there on "how to" is great.

Several threads are getting all tangled up here. Mikel, in Les's first "Is critique dead" thread the same idea of different buttons was put forth. Nothing wrong with bringing it up again, just letting you know.

Les - love the tips and the primer here, but my concern is that not enough people will see it...just the usual suspects that review the threads. I would suggest taking the primer from ehow.com (if for no other reason, it is a bit shorter and more concise) and making it a link that new members are taken to automatically after they register. In addition, while there is a section on how to give a good review under "Other Stuff" I think it perhaps belongs in "FAQ's"...or even in a catagory of it's own, along with FAQ'S and Other Stuff, etc.

Let's see if I can do 'short' this go round.

As Rich mentions above, this stuff has been bantered about on another discussion thread. Dredging my memory ... and although the artist level of critique indicator idea has some merit ... my thoughts are as follows:

'We' post to our beloved site here to get feedback to improve in our respective areas of interest. Simply stated.

Critique should be expected ... and ... given.


Mitigating the level or degree of critique falls in the hands of the membership (this is where possibly the indicator button thing, or the level of critique desired comes into play perhaps).

Ie. My 'workflow' when critiquing includes:

i) viewing the member's profile page to get a gauge on age, length of stay thus far on our site

ii) opening up their respective galleries; to gauge their progress, skill level, programs and/or equipment used and where their interests lie

iii) and then finally, I look at the image and compose my 'critique'.

I think you brought a different look, that is needed to works on this site. You did a good job in my opinion Thank You

"By critiqueing we also learn about ourselves and our art. e.g I am critiqueing myself when I view this work... "

I couldn't agree more.

And on that note, if you read through the above sections ... ask yourself the same questions posed, when looking at one of your own potential postings.

Objectivity comes with practice and distancing ourselves from the emotional component that is usually inherent with our images.

/\ Just some thoughts.

Great. Many thanks, Les. I will use it for my comments. I hope my English will be better one day and I will be able to write those professional comments.

Your command of the English language is very good Toto and you use it correctly :=)

@Les...excellent follow-up article on critiquing. Thanks for the research you did. Much appreciated!

Dear Mimi, you are very kind. I decided to learn more. Just be ready. :D

/\ (*gets ready to take notes ...*)

Hey, I am always learning ... aren't you? ;o)

Several good critiques (imho) to be founf here. The first few in particular are helpful in helping me to improve....

Thank you Les ... very helpful indeed when critiquing an image.

I use much of the above mentioned critique methods, but in a backward fashion starting with how the image makes me feel / or what the artist is trying to convey, then what I find appealing in the image, & finally work my way up to the technical factors of the image.

I shall bookmark this page & the other links for future reference.

Thanks again! :-)

In the somewhat current vernacular of our times ... fail.

:o\

deleted sorry - changed my mind :) I posted on the link instead.

'Gather round, ye wagons ...'

Sad, really.

? what is sad Les?

does every comment have to be a critique? let's remember that under the picture it says, "post a comment" not "post a critique".

According to what you find here, the short answer is yes, every comment should contain at least an element of critique. That appears to be *caedes original intent.

~~Pops some popcorn and waits for the inevitable fireworks to begin~~

i was going to say something but, "~~Pops some popcorn and waits for the inevitable fireworks to begin~~" would indicate that there should be an argument. i'm glad that you pointed out caedes original intent, but from the very beginning i see almost no comments which include all of the elements in his statement. i for one would not like to tell someone what i didn't like. technical suggestions would be something i'd consider.
many of us on the have become good friends. i think that i should be able to make positive comments if i wish and leave the negative ones to those who like to make them.
no doubt, speaking out will "cost" me.

It becomes very difficult. In Giving an Image Review it states

"Do include one or more points that you don't like." which leads one to believe if you dont see anything you dont like then dont bother saying anything.

Today I gave a longer than usual (for me) comment on an image I do like, saying what I thought of it and had a pm back from the artist saying that was exactly what they were attempting to convey. So I don't consider that was a waste of time at all.

The large majority of us are not experts and I would imagine ferreting around for images that had things one did not like to the exclusion of saying good things about those we do would make it a not very pleasant experience. Unless of course you had the ability to be of some usefulness to the artist. Most of us help as and when we can according to what we know.
If it is not a lot then there is not a lot to be offered.

Directing new members and older members to instructions on how to critique only works to a degree. You can lead a horse to water . . . . etc.



We mostly learn best by example.



Suggestion for the next contest . .

The best critique on a chosen image. People like contests :)

@ Jeenie: Cost you? I would certainly hope not, what you said was polite, reasoned and an honest personal opinion. A question though...why do you equate 'critique' with 'negative'? I had a post, which I've deleted, because it really wasn't all that good, but now I wish I'd saved it because it could be germaine here. It was on a bluff overlooking Lake Michigan with a bench (for Awd Bob!) in it. Several people commented it would have been a better post if there was more foregorund in it, and one person pointed out part of the sky was over-exposed. Critique? Yes. Negative? Not in the way that I took it. They were suggestions that would help me improve the next time. Just some food for thought.

@ Lyn: Well stated. Brushes right up against the crux of the matter to me. I can gp back through my own gallery, look honestly at my posts and in virtually everyone of them see something that can be improved on. I wish someone (anyone) had pointed those things out to me. Without that I go out and take more mediocre pictures...which my gallery is already filled with. How many posts, even in the permanent galleries are 100% perfect, with no room for additional improvement? No need to tear the picture apart looking for minute flaws...but an honest study of the 5 points Les listed above oft times turns up at least one suggestion for improvement...which is in itself a critique.

Not meant as an attack on either of you, just food for thought.

~~Returns the soapbox he's standing on to it's rightful owner.~~

Just because we didn't notice that the roof appeared to be missing can't be an indictment of our wanting to offer comment or critique. For the record, I view EVERY IMAGE full screen. Maybe I thought the roof blended with the clouds and made a comment based more on the emotion I drew from viewing Tick's image. After all, technique and proper placement are to be aimed for and certainly contribute to the appeal of an image, but I think the emotive factor is what ultimately establishes if an image is good art or not. Tick's image demonstrated no major compositional or photographic discrepancies to me and so I responded with the feelings that the image evoked in my 'critique'. Maybe we should just not comment on anyone's images if we don't have a full ten minutes to contemplate it and construct a thorough one page critique. Some of us have jobs and still try to allow as much time for the site as possible in our busy schedules and we know we want to say something vis a vis an image, but don't always have the leisure for the 'full' treatment as outlined above. As Jen said, we are asked for comment beneath a post, not a critique per se.

Despite the heated discussion above, at points and in parts ... the intro post contains, yet ... some more food for thought when commenting on images.

I give it ... one and a half thumbs up.

:oP