Beginner How to start reading photos to make good critiques?

[AndrewFlannigan]

But as Lee said, the OP has seemingly disappeared anyway,

... leaving behind that elephant in the middle of the room: is there any objective standard, which defines a "good" picture?

 

[gramps]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Anything other than this is working to a formula ... why would I (you/he/she) want to just be like someone else?

 

[delb0y]

... leaving behind that elephant in the middle of the room: is there any objective standard, which defines a "good" picture?

Not for me. But I guess there probably is for camera competition judges, RPS panel judges, and so on. Those are the folks who will be able to answer this question.

I tend to like photos that capture a moment in time, never to be repeated. Quite often there is camera shake, poor composition, inadequate lighting. But what there is, above all else, is story. That what makes a "good" picture for me.

Of course, the story that I read into a photo may not be the one the photographer intended to tell.

 

[delb0y]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Anything other than this is working to a formula ... why would I (you/he/she) want to just be like someone else?

I had my photography revelation when looking through Flickr for a photo I had taken of Gloucester docks to show my father-in-law. I wasn't logged in (I was probably searching on my phone) and I found the photo, went to show it to Mike and suddenly realised the user-name wasn't me. My initial thought was somebody has nicked my picture! Then I realised that the image I was looking at predated mine. In fact, I had nicked someone else's photo. Or rather, we had taken almost identical images. That was when I realised that I needed to try harder and find unique moments (because, pretty much, all the good places had already been captured, and thus weren't unique).

Don't start me on cover bands or tribute bands...

Derek

 

[Bodian]

... leaving behind that elephant in the middle of the room: is there any objective standard, which defines a "good" picture?

Some of my photos that I think are amongst my best do nothing for others - yet some of them that I think are ordinary get 'wow' and 'amazing' type comments. It's all subjective rather than objective I think.

 

[LeeRatters]

In terms of the OP, I guess it's all about building experience through looking at hundreds, if not thousands of images, and applying the ideas, questions, strategies outlined in this thread. There have been some good answers, and if applied, the OP will build the knowledge, understanding, and ability to read photos, and then appreciate - or criticise - them.

Applying that knowledge to his own work would be the next step, but of course that wasn't the question asked.

But as Lee said, the OP has seemingly disappeared anyway, which doesn't bode well for all this work that lies ahead of him.

In terms of my post, about choosing one's mentors wisely, I was thinking about the myriad of YT content providers who say "do this" or "don't do this" and then , through the work they share, clearly demonstrate how they neglect to apply their own advice (which, is usually the core advice anyway, and doesn't need repeating a thousand times by a thousand self-appointed experts). The "greats" tend to be great for a reason. These days there are a lot of content providers churning out weekly videos in order to get their viewing minutes and likes up, and we need to be careful where we spend our time. Or maybe that's just me?

Derek

I agree with the fact YouTube is a minefield....

Generally for photography, not just street related. Personally, I tend to not watch people with their clickbait titles..... ie Nigel Danson (love his photography though) Henry Turner, Gareth Danks, etc etc

I'm pretty new to street on YouTube but again I try to avoid the people with the constant top tips videos. I find I learn more from watching/listening/absorbing from the likes of Joe Greer, Paulie B with his walkie talkie vlogs, etc I've just started a few from the guys at Framelines, Mike Chudley (?) for more UK based stuff.

^ sorry this is all off the top of my head thinking..... which isn't always 100% conclusive

 

[LeeRatters]

Some of my photos that I think are amongst my best do nothing for others - yet some of them that I think are ordinary get 'wow' and 'amazing' type comments. It's all subjective rather than objective I think.

This is very true also.

 

[woof woof]

Some of my photos that I think are amongst my best do nothing for others - yet some of them that I think are ordinary get 'wow' and 'amazing' type comments. It's all subjective rather than objective I think.

Yup.

People have different tastes and there's the emotional memory and attachment side that may matter to the picture taker but others may just not see it.

 

[benc98]

Another book recommendation for anyone interested in ‘reading images’ and specifically critiques… Terry Barrett Student Crics - read it recently, it’s an easy read and changed my views on critique quite a bit

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Perhaps an extension to this question might be: "is there any purpose to art critique beyond massaging the ego of the critic and / or the ego of the creator"?

I suppose one obvious answer might be "to improve the work of the creator" which then returns us the question "how does anyone define 'good' or 'bad' art"? That in turn leads us back to Terry Pratchett's 'Auditors' and their search for art at the molecular level. Can anyone define a standard of quality in any art form that departs from "because I like it", when the verbiage has been cleared away?

 

[gramps]

Critique gives the 'creator' something to think about and maybe work on in the future, but we shouldn't get caught up in the idea that all critique is beneficial.
I have the right to decide what 'my' work will be like and just because someone thinks that it doesn't 'conform' doesn't mean that I should change to their idea of conformity.
Back in the day when critique was the norm here there was very much an over-riding attitude from some that if you rejected crit you were 'spitting your dummy out', few seemed to consider whether the one giving crit was actually qualified to do so, or that the 'creator' wanted to take the photo a certain way!
Crit is valuable but so is individual interpretation.

 

[Merlin5]

Perhaps an extension to this question might be: "is there any purpose to art critique beyond massaging the ego of the critic and / or the ego of the creator"?

I suppose one obvious answer might be "to improve the work of the creator" which then returns us the question "how does anyone define 'good' or 'bad' art"? That in turn leads us back to Terry Pratchett's 'Auditors' and their search for art at the molecular level. Can anyone define a standard of quality in any art form that departs from "because I like it", when the verbiage has been cleared away?

You seem to have this frame of mind that there's no such thing as good or bad photos and it's all subjective. There ARE objectively excellent photographs, because whether someone likes them or not, what cannot be denied is that those photos have great composition, framing, and above all interesting subject matter. There are many that don't particularly appeal to me, but at the same time I can see how good the photo is, either technically or content wise and why they would appeal to many viewers.

They're the photos that are not easy to make, the ones that you have to be walking the streets for hours and hours every single day to find. Not the easy and lazy 'low hanging fruit, anyone can do' pictures that most street photographers post on instagram and the like. The really great street photographers are great for a reason. Their photos are incredibly creative and magical. It's unfortunate that so many photographers are a bit thin skinned, shun critique, and in so doing stunt their growth. It's because they're so emotionally attached to their photos and like to use the excuse that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Tony Ray Jones, a master street photographer whose work I adore, said it best. Don't take boring photos.

Don’t Take Boring Photos: 13 Tips for Street Photographers from Tony Ray-Jones - ERIC KIM ₿

In the late 1960's, photographer Tony Ray-Jones wrote a hand-written note on his "approach" when he took photographs. I think these tips are lessons all of us as street photographers can learn from him. Read more to see some of his inspirational images (and this list typed out): 1. Be more...

erickimphotography.com

View: https://youtu.be/9KA_qm7HWgo?si=T7-RsWTOGx0dDN9Z

 

[gramps]

You seem to have this frame of mind that there's no such thing as good or bad photos and it's all subjective. There ARE objectively excellent photographs, because whether someone likes them or not, what cannot be denied is that those photos have great composition, framing, and above all interesting subject matter. There are many that don't particularly appeal to me, but at the same time I can see how good the photo is, either technically or content wise and why they would appeal to many viewers.

They're the photos that are not easy to make, the ones that you have to be walking the streets for hours and hours every single day to find. Not the easy and lazy 'low hanging fruit, anyone can do' pictures that most street photographers post on instagram and the like. The really great street photographers are great for a reason. Their photos are incredibly creative and magical. It's unfortunate that so many photographers are a bit thin skinned, shun critique, and in so doing stunt their growth. It's because they're so emotionally attached to their photos and like to use the excuse that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Tony Ray Jones, a master street photographer whose work I adore, said it best. Don't take boring photos.

Don’t Take Boring Photos: 13 Tips for Street Photographers from Tony Ray-Jones - ERIC KIM ₿

In the late 1960's, photographer Tony Ray-Jones wrote a hand-written note on his "approach" when he took photographs. I think these tips are lessons all of us as street photographers can learn from him. Read more to see some of his inspirational images (and this list typed out): 1. Be more...

erickimphotography.com

View: https://youtu.be/9KA_qm7HWgo?si=T7-RsWTOGx0dDN9Z

Lee you used to come here and post some interesting photos but now you just seem to come to criticise (not critique) ... what has changed?

 

[Merlin5]

I agree with the fact YouTube is a minefield....

Generally for photography, not just street related. Personally, I tend to not watch people with their clickbait titles..... ie Nigel Danson (love his photography though) Henry Turner, Gareth Danks, etc etc

I'm pretty new to street on YouTube but again I try to avoid the people with the constant top tips videos. I find I learn more from watching/listening/absorbing from the likes of Joe Greer, Paulie B with his walkie talkie vlogs, etc I've just started a few from the guys at Framelines, Mike Chudley (?) for more UK based stuff.

^ sorry this is all off the top of my head thinking..... which isn't always 100% conclusive

Framelines is not bad, I watch those. Rupert Vandervell has some nice content. Samuel Streetlife is worth watching. 'Great Photographers' channel showcases a lot of the work from a bunch of the great street photographers. Paulie B is the best one though, he's interviewed some really good street photographers such as Aaron Berger and Melissa Shaughnessy. Most of the rest, particularly the ones that do POV street, forget them! You're doing well Lee. You're transitioning from landscape to street and I can see you have a good eye for it and are already able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Merlin5]

Lee you used to come here and post some interesting photos but now you just seem to come to criticise (not critique) ... what has changed?

Sorry Roger. I don't mean to be the baddie. I guess I have changed since I first started street photography. It's only really one person here that I criticise for what I think are blinkered opinions. However, perhaps I shouldn't post in these discussion topics anymore.

 

[gramps]

perhaps I shouldn't post in these discussion topics anymore.

Your choice of course but it would be nice to see more of your work and examples of what you think we should be aspiring to.

 

[Ed Sutton]

How many of you have done a degree course in the visual arts? Some of the views I'm reading here suspect it's not many.

Things may well have changed in the forty odd years since I graduated, but crit was never a one way street. It took the form of a discussion with your tutor, and often with your peers. You were always free to disagree, and even ignore, advice. One of the biggest benefits was hearing views from people with a longer and wider experience of the arts. People who encouraged you to look at work by artists you hadn't heard of, and might not even like, and to try new approaches.

The most important takeaway from an education like that is an ability to crit your own work well. To be able to work out for yourself why it succeeds or fails. Not in comparison to 'rules' in a book or what some Youtuber says makes pictures work, but in relation to what you are trying to achieve with them.

Just my experience.

PS My tutor told me there are only two kinds of painting. Good ones and bad ones.

 

[delb0y]

It's a good discussion - I agree with @Merlin5 / Lee - that (a) Tony Ray Jones is wonderful and (b) that there are street photos that meet any number of "good" criteria, and as far as critique goes we can look at these, discuss them, and learn from them. Critique in any area of the arts is immensely beneficial and I find it sad that it's no longer part of what goes on here. My greatest learning in music, prose, and photography has always come from critiques by better protagonists, and those critiques - and the associated learning - has seen me improve no end.

But I still maintain that a photo doesn't have to have those elements to be good. Yes, these things may be the foundations of "good" photography and yes they may make a photo stronger, but they are not essential. An image can be good, great, indeed iconic, without them. As stated earlier, many of my favourite photos have camera shake, or aren't in focus, or have blown highlights, or the darks contain no detail, or arms and heads are cut off, or there's a colour cast to the picture, or the horizon isn't level, or the framing of the subject is poor,.. or indeed a score of other things All of these things ought to negate a photo from being considered "good" but if there is a story there, then (for me - YMMV) that story surpasses all else, and what ought to be a poor photograph, technically, can be (again to me), great.

And, of course, the opposite can be true. A photograph that meets all of the criteria by which the experts could judge its merit and which could score top marks in all areas may leave me cold and uninterested.

Anyway, yes, we can learn from feedback. Critiques by masters that point out the important stuff is gold-dust. But let's hope those masters haven't been blinded to what really matters.

Derek

 

[delb0y]

PS My tutor told me there are only two kinds of painting. Good ones and bad ones.

A friend of mine who I play music with, and who performs a much more varied set of tunes than I do, often says something similar as he tries to engage me in playing tunes I don't really care for. There is, he says, just good music and bad music. To which I reply, "I agree. But in the good music category, there is still music I like, and music I dislike."

Of course, he plays out about three times a week, and I play out about three times a year...

 

[Ed Sutton]

There is, he says, just good music and bad music. To which I reply, "I agree. But in the good music category, there is still music I like, and music I dislike."

The thing is that you acknowledge that.

 

[LeeRatters]

Framelines is not bad, I watch those. Rupert Vandervell has some nice content. Samuel Streetlife is worth watching. 'Great Photographers' channel showcases a lot of the work from a bunch of the great street photographers. Paulie B is the best one though, he's interviewed some really good street photographers such as Aaron Berger and Melissa Shaughnessy. Most of the rest, particularly the ones that do POV street, forget them! You're doing well Lee. You're transitioning from landscape to street and I can see you have a good eye for it and are already able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm already able to separate my own wheat from the chaff sometimes before I've taken it But I often still take the shots though. Not because I am machine gunning, just because I like to look at my photos that aren't 'right' and notice & learn WHY they aren't right. I will admit, I do have a few where I say to myself "what were you thinking?!!" but mainly it's "that's okay/pretty good, but....."

I think critique is good but in this genre sometimes things happen so quickly that the images can't be technically perfect But as @delb0y mentioned above, sometimes they don't have to be technically perfect

 

[benc98]

Critique gives the 'creator' something to think about and maybe work on in the future, but we shouldn't get caught up in the idea that all critique is beneficial.
I have the right to decide what 'my' work will be like and just because someone thinks that it doesn't 'conform' doesn't mean that I should change to their idea of conformity.
Back in the day when critique was the norm here there was very much an over-riding attitude from some that if you rejected crit you were 'spitting your dummy out', few seemed to consider whether the one giving crit was actually qualified to do so, or that the 'creator' wanted to take the photo a certain way!
Crit is valuable but so is individual interpretation.

This place isn't really set up for receiving / offering critique.. If done properly, good critique is always going to be beneficial. Most of what you've listed there are examples of bad critique, from the photographer's part as well as the critique giver..

 

[gramps]

good critique is always going to be beneficial

and who decides what “good” is?

I don’t get your idea that this place isn’t setup for critique, you can critique, you can offer your photos for critique, but like Lee you now rarely do.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

and who decides what “good” is?

That is the key question.

You seem to have this frame of mind that there's no such thing as good or bad photos and it's all subjective.

That is indeed my opinion.

It's interesting that the worst dictatorships in history were associated with state organs, which decided whose art was "good" and therefor could be shown and whose was art was "bad" and therefor must be suppressed. I hold to the opinion that all beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that is a very good thing indeed.

 

[benc98]

and who decides what “good” is?

'Good' critique leaves everyone inspired to make more photos... it doesn't need to be more complicated

I don’t get your idea that this place isn’t setup for critique, you can critique, you can offer your photos for critique, but like Lee you now rarely do.

There's too much cynicism from photographers for it to work - tbh just look at your language in this thread. Most folks here just mic drop photos and don't offer much supporting text to give a clue about their intent or ask questions to help guide any commentors - therefore anyone commenting is going in blind. I'm sure most photographers just want positive comments anyway. Critique should be more conversational anyway imo

 

[gramps]

There's too much cynicism from photographers for it to work - tbh just look at your language in this thread.

I'm cynical of people telling me what my photography has to be like ... critique can be very helpful but I don't feel the need to conform my photography to someone else's view.
I'm also cynical of people who don't show their own work to back up their professed wisdom.

 

[Merlin5]

That is the key question.

That is indeed my opinion.

It's interesting that the worst dictatorships in history were associated with state organs, which decided whose art was "good" and therefor could be shown and whose was art was "bad" and therefor must be suppressed. I hold to the opinion that all beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that is a very good thing indeed.

I don't disagree, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. There's always people that will like anything, even a photo taken with the lens cap still on will excite someone. But there's still standards of street photography from very low to very high, it's just better if you can distinguish between them.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

But there's still standards of street photography from very low to very high, it's just better if you can distinguish between them.

That is where I disagree with you, totally.

I simply don't agree with the concept of "good" or "bad" art of any kind. As I tried to indicate, gently, in my previous posting, such concepts are indicative of a desire to control what and how others think. I think it's rude to tell others what they should like or dislike.

 

[LeeRatters]

That is where I disagree with you, totally.

I simply don't agree with the concept of "good" or "bad" art of any kind. As I tried to indicate, gently, in my previous posting, such concepts are indicative of a desire to control what and how others think. I think it's rude to tell others what they should like or dislike.

You should try some of the ''street photography'' Farcebook groups..... And see what people post in those......

Car alloys.... Cats.... Their feet.... Tree in a field...... Posed portraits with a motorbike...... Rainbows......

 

[Merlin5]

That is where I disagree with you, totally.

I simply don't agree with the concept of "good" or "bad" art of any kind. As I tried to indicate, gently, in my previous posting, such concepts are indicative of a desire to control what and how others think. I think it's rude to tell others what they should like or dislike.

I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't like. But the more you investigate street photography and the more you study the work of the greats, the more you start to see that there really is good and bad street photography.

Alex Webb frequently says 99 per cent of street photography is about failure. What do you think that means?

Robert Frank shot 767 rolls of film and almost 27,000 frames for The Americans. The book only has 83 photos. What do you think that means?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't like.

Nor should you...

...and yet you go on to do exactly that.

 

[Merlin5]

Nor should you...

...and yet you go on to do exactly that.

No I don't. I'm just talking about acknowledging something you're in denial of, that there is good, mediocre and bad street photography. Nowhere in this thread have I said what you or anyone should or shouldn't like. The fact that great and famous street photographers dead and alive exist or existed at all is because they're really good. It's not just about 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' or anything to do with your conspiracy theory about the control of art to the masses.

 

[JohnN]

Well, I don't often end up in this corner of the forum, but for this thread I'm glad I did - very rare I'll read everything written, and rarer that I pay attention, but some gold here.

Interesting the take and what's good or bad, and as an uneducated man, I do get hung up on the technical aspects - a picture will be discarded if its out of focus, or the depth of field leave a messy background, however, in complete contrast to this, one of the few pictures on my wall is a poor composed, badly lit "snap" my my grandma (now dead), holding one of my kids as a baby (very much alive) with my auntie (completely insane) photobombing the shot - this to me is a great picture, not because of how it looks but what it means.

One point on critique is a phrase I often use, that some people are "suffering from opinions", critique when both requested and given with a genuine wish to help is constructive, but when given without consideration based solely on technical aspects, or worse yet, a feeling of superiority are destructive.
I know this as I posted a picture a long time ago, I couldn't tell you which or when, all I recall was the feeling that something I was proud of was apparently rubbish, that made me put the camera down - you could call me a snowflake, or worse, but I know I'm not as I've survived some absolute *******s in a work environment over the years, but the vulnerability attached to something can leave cracks in the armour that some appear to delight in exploiting.

On a happier note though and returning to this thread, there really are some great ideas and thoughts in here and I thank you all for this.

Something that wandered into my head as I rambled on, is that one great picture that I didn't take, great, because it really told a story.
It was a loads of kids chasing a super car at a car fest type thing, it spoke to me, the comparison between them chasing the money, in much the same way children in poor countries might chase the rich.
So why didn't I take it? - I had my camera, and even the though, so why?
Because there were kids in the shot - the media (social and press) presumption that every old bloke with a camera has "another reason" to take the photo has stopped me taking more than one potentially great picture, so hats off to you brave street photographers.

 

[delb0y]

Because there were kids in the shot - the media (social and press) presumption that every old bloke with a camera has "another reason" to take the photo has stopped me taking more than one potentially great picture, so hats off to you brave street photographers.

Kids, the homeless, and musicians... I can't recall who said they were the three subjects it is wise not to photograph on the street. I think it may have been Matt Hart. Musicians, though, are okay if you put some money in the hat

Derek

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I'm just talking about acknowledging something you're in denial of,

"in denial of" is a loaded phrase, because, in this context, it implies someone's opinion is of less value than your own.

there is good, mediocre and bad street photography.

That phrase is exactly where we disagree. In my world, there are pictures which impress me, pictures which don't impress me and pictures which I actively dislike. The difference between us is that you imply the existence of absolute standards, whereas I consider the appreciation or otherwise of any art to be purely subjective,

Nowhere in this thread have I said what you or anyone should or shouldn't like.

You imply such in the statement I quoted above, beginning "there is good, mediocre..."

The fact that great and famous street photographers dead and alive exist or existed at all is because they're really good.

And you reinforce the implication in that statement.

It's not just about 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' or anything to do with your conspiracy theory about the control of art to the masses.

I don't understand how you get from my comment, on the history of art in the Soviet Union and the Nazi state, to a "conspiracy theory"...

 

[Ed Sutton]

I'm cynical of people telling me what my photography has to be like ...

A proper critical dialogue doesn't do that. It makes you think about your work.

I simply don't agree with the concept of "good" or "bad" art of any kind.

That attitude promotes a race to the bottom where nobody strives to improve, because what they already make is good enough for them. Of course if an individual is happy carrying on that way that's fine. If everyone acts in that way then culture is f***ed.

 

[Pound Coin]

All photography is about subject, timing, composition and exposure. As long as critique covers these, can't see a problem with it.

Oh, and there are definitely many, many photos that have poor subject, or timing, or composition or exposure. Or some combination of these.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

That attitude promotes a race to the bottom

You may think so but as I do not think of photography as having a "top" or a "bottom", I disagree.

...where nobody strives to improve, because what they already make is good enough for them.

If someone is satisfied with what they do, who are you or I to tell them to think otherwise?

If everyone acts in that way then culture is f***ed.

There are many answers to that claim but I think it best I refrain from any of them.

 

[Ed Sutton]

You may think so but as I do not think of photography as having a "top" or a "bottom", I disagree.

It's not a league table, but if you can't accept some photography is rubbish then you might as well stop joining in these discussions.

If someone is satisfied with what they do, who are you or I to tell them to think otherwise?

I agree. But if someone isn't satisfied then some helpful suggestions might benefit them. But it doesn't have to be an order as to what they have to do.

There are many answers to that claim but I think it best I refrain from any of them.

Good.

It has struck me this morning that these discussions/arguments are looking at photography from the wrong place. Photography isn't an art. Sure it can be used to make art, but photography is a medium in the same way paint and clay are. The only way to critique photographs in a meaningful way is within the context they were made and the purpose they serve. Looked at that way then there ARE good and bad photographs.

 

[BillN_33]

there is little or no critique now on this forum - maybe this is a pity as even basic comments help beginners particularly in the technical aspects of photography

critique in the past was seen as criticism by some, but even mild criticism can sometimes be helpful to some people