Some great observations and statements you've made here
And you're right... we all have that "fresh pair of eyes".
Amazing how differently we all react to the SAME image!
That first reaction is definitely there with all of us though... I just think it should be a high priority that needs to be fine tuned and understood a little better.
Thanks Jim,
Albert
Jim Rickards wrote:
Over analyzing - like beauty - may be in the eye of the beholder.
So what is "over analyzing to one person, may be helpful insight from a fresh pair of eyes, to another poster.
I am a frequent critique writer on this forum. My goal is to assist others by:
providing insight - things that I notice that they may not have.
providing impressions when I viewed the picture.
discussing setups - cause and effect issues with lighting, cropping, posing and all the other stuff we notice.
If all this comes across as over analyzing to some, I'm OK with that. Posts to discussion forums are read by many people. Sometimes the OP will get benefit, sometimes other readers will. Sometimes noboby.
Albert, I also like your method - ( look at the picture instantly, - give an impression.) That's a good way to judge a picture too....Show more →
having spend time making a specific photo (preparations, setup, post-processing,...), "Look at the picture instantly" often makes me choose the image where I spend most effort in. but looking back at all photos of the shoot after a few days often results in a different top selection.
That makes a lot of sense... it's easier "evaluating the technical".
People do tend to gravitate towards their "comfort" zones... technical aspects of photography are mostly repeatable. It's the artistic side... the emotive side... that's so hard to reproduce.
As cgardner said in another post....(a photographer with over 40yrs. experience... )there are just a few of his life long images that have thoroughly met his expectations.
This thread has generated some great information
Thanks Ted,
Albert
farley wrote:
We are more comfortable evaluating the technical. It is easier to assess the rules of exposure, lighting, DOF, etc. It is much more difficult to photograph an emotion, and to critique it. Daschund Woof currently has a thread with a photograph that breaks the mold. I Love the photograph. It could be argued however that it is technically imperfect. I am not saying that the technical or the artistic is more critical, but that there are two sides. At times one should be given more weight than the other. Senior pictures should most of the time be technically correct, but a photograph of anger could sacrifice some of the technical. This is an interesting thread. thanks Albert
Personally, I'm not interested in an 'impressions-only' or 'how does it make me feel' critique.' Some are, fine by me--it is important, but just ONE way to look at this. But like many here, we are hungry for info that is less 'feeling' oriented...this is a craft with vision AND skill required...that learning process is faster with group input from people that know photography at some level...unless of course one thinks they know everything now. When you go to college, you take classes in the basics first, then more classes in the basics plus a little more where the previous class in the seqences is required, and on it goes...you don't start at the end.
You wrote: "I find it hard to critique if the initial emotion is simply not there to begin with."
I do that (critique with no emotional response caused by the image) all the time here at the People Forum.
For example, I have posted comments on over 4,000 images so far seen here in this forum. Of that 4,000, very few had any kind of "emotional" impact or "emotion" or "impression" on me. Not because I don't feel, either. The ones that do cause a favorable impression, are more "special" to me than all the others regardless of the technical merits of the image.
Now...if the original poster was "brave enough" to ask for only "Impressions" then the comments I posted for them may have been very different indeed.
Making a STRONG "positive impression" with an image is hard to do.
Making a "technically OK" (e.g. proper exposure) picture/image is relatively EASY to do.
In fact...most of the photos I see here are lacking in emotions and most photos that are made by most photographers (even many pros) do not give me a strong "impression" other than "same old same old." Most, but not all. And I don't consider "emotion" the same as "impression." They are similar, and closely related by cause and effect, but not the same thing.
And this is not to say that I think "emotion" has to be "blatantly obvious" such as a big smile or a big hug or such. I tend to like obvious laughter and joy. I also like very subtle cues to emotions and thought. So there is a "range" of emotions and expressions. In fact, some "emotionless" images of people can be very effective and give strong impressions if well designed and other elements carry or create the "strength" of the image.
An example of that last point might be someone who is staring at something with little show of emotion. Think a "flat expressionless face." IF they are staring at a tragic scene (a fire or death) then we the viewers are given a cue and understand their lack of visible emotion. In that case the lack of emotion "fits" or can be interpreted as "shock." IF on the other hand, the person is staring at an infant in their arms (or a loved one) we may not get the "intended" impression and it may seem like a "flat, emotionless" image. In that case, the emotion does not "fit" the situation and expectations (and our visual senses) and so the viewer will probably see a "woman holding a baby she does not love" as a result.
Here is another example. I recently posted a photo of a pianist (one of several). She is in a "posture" (not a "pose" I put her in) that is perfectly "natural" for her as she begins to play the piano. She is "trained" to "address" the piano that certain way. It looks "stiff" because the "natural posture" at that moment IS STIFF. So...the "stiffness" is something I wanted to capture and show. That was my intent. So when people see it and give an "impression" and said, "she looks stiff" I feel I have met my goal. That image is a "counterpoint" and balance (visually) to a following (and jointly displayed image) that shows her "relaxed." So a "lack of emotion" can be a useful part of an image or set of images. But...to make it succeed, I believe it takes other "elements" that are sometimes missing in many, if not most, photos.
Hi Steady...I have to disagree, making a technically OK photo is not easy to do--unless you are talking about using a pop up flash, camera on auto, and subject in the middle. And what is good to one is not to another. Taking a snapshot is easy to do. I like that you ask people for impressions...we know what you want and what you don't want. However I think FM would LOSE tremendous value it all critiques were asking about impressions only. Sorry, I've been here a long time and learned a lot...and just don't want some kind of "impressions only" movement to stop the process which has helped so many over the years.
chuck is right on........(wish i could wright like you!!! )
I'd like to add.....if you are going to comment or critique someone. at least try to practice what you preach!!!!
or have some type of reference or link to show that you have some idea of what you are talking about!!! sooooo many on these sites are very opinionated about comments of others, but their own work is LESS to be desired.
MSC wrote:
Hi Steady...I have to disagree, making a technically OK photo is not easy to do--unless you are talking about using a pop up flash, camera on auto, and subject in the middle. And what is good to one is not to another. Taking a snapshot is easy to do. I like that you ask people for impressions...we know what you want and what you don't want. However I think FM would LOSE tremendous value it all critiques were asking about impressions only. Sorry, I've been here a long time and learned a lot...and just don't want some kind of "impressions only" movement to stop the process which has helped so many over the years. ...Show more →
Hi.
Don't mistake my enthusiasm and "promotion" or "suggestion" of "Impressions Style" discussions as "exclusive."
I encourage others to try it.
I also participate in "technical" based critiques on 4,000 other posted photos. Only a handful of those asked for "impressions."
I don't see "impressions" style discussions becoming a dominant force that causes everyone to stop asking for technical tips. Not at all. That is NOT my intent either.
I simply think it offers a very different (and valuable) approach to discussing images or photography. It is "under-represented" as a type of "interpretive" viewing of photographs here on the FM People Forum.
So...don't worry..."Impressions" style discussions are not to be feared or avoided as something that will cause a "loss" of technical discussions. I see them (Impressions style discussions) as an additional way of discussing images. It is not a "zero sum" game where only one can exist. Both can exist.
Agree that impressions can be an interesting addition to traditional critiques, which are far more broad than just impressions only. Constructive criquies on both conveyed impression and technical skill are what I consider most valuable, but as I said before, I'm fine with whatever critique one wants to give, which is why I use the ubiquitious "C&C encouraged." That gives everyone the opportunity to create how they want to comment. Sometimes I'll ask for a technical critique too, especially in a new area of photography I'm learning. For those areas I know pretty well, I still want critiques because there is always someone better out there. Like studio photography...I know soooo little about this, I'm really in need of basic techical critiques there--what a challenge are strobes, makeup, poses...all of it a very unique kind of shooting! There is certainly room for all kinds of critiques and comments of course, that goes without saying because that what FM is! I'm also very impressed over the years with how freely people will share and give of thier time and energy to help others here. Which is why have going to many photo boards over time, I always spend by far the most time here at FM.
However, this thread started out on a different subject, as there was an implication that a feeling or impression type critique was most desired. My point is that it may well be most desired by some, but as you know from reading hundreds and thousands of posts here, not dominate in any way. I'm interested in impressions too, but not often not looking for that on a photography board populated by photographers. I'm looking for the many and varied views of photographers and/or those very interested in photography. Thier 'impressions' are important too as they will see things differently than the general population. And at a certain level (I am not there of course) the technical become less important than how the image is generally received by the viewer. Annie Lebowitz has a skill set that so advanced, my guess is that she would be most interested in "impressions." But let's face it, the only ones she really cares about are the impressions of her customers.
Photographers, hobby and pro shooters alike, have a both an "eye" and a "skill set" the general population does not and hopefully analyze from a unique perspecitve at both levels. There is room for all types of critique and I want to encouage ALL of them.
Now however, it is time to get ready to go to my sister's house for Thanksgiving dinner...and hope you all enjoy a Happy Thanksgiving too!
MSC wrote:
Hi Steady...I have to disagree, making a technically OK photo is not easy to do--unless you are talking about using a pop up flash, camera on auto, and subject in the middle. And what is good to one is not to another. Taking a snapshot is easy to do. I like that you ask people for impressions...we know what you want and what you don't want. However I think FM would LOSE tremendous value it all critiques were asking about impressions only. Sorry, I've been here a long time and learned a lot...and just don't want some kind of "impressions only" movement to stop the process which has helped so many over the years. ...Show more →
I think what Steady was saying was that in the thousands of technically proficient images he has seen here, very few are emotional moving or emotionally proficient. I would agree that the proper exposure can be formulaic, but as Rian said, those technical aspects are also the "artist's tools" and should be used to create the artist's own vision.
I find it much easier to take an in-focus picture that is framed and lit how I want, than to capture the correct expression... just my $.02
cgardner wrote:
To critique any work of art you first need to just react to it on an emotional level.
Some great works of art are the result of careful planning and meticulous execution. Others are just happy accidents which are discovered on the editing screen. Which method produces the result isn't really important and often isn't obvious. In fact some of the most effective messages are presented in images carefully planned and skillfully executed to look like unplanned slices of life candidly frozen in time.
But beyond the emotional reaction leading to an opinion of whether you like it or not, if you are curious and want to know WHY you reacted to the image as you did and want to create the same reaction in photos you take in the future you need to apply some form of analysis.
Art criticism, as taught academically in schools and books, follows two basic methods: historical and analytical/perceptual. The historical approach compares the work with those which have preceded it and likely influenced the author of the new work. In that context you might compare a photo similar in style to Diane Arbus or Ansel Adams to specific examples of their work. The analytical / perceptual method tries to discover what created the reaction to message of the image by making an inventory of its elements and examining how they relate to each other.
Being able to react emotionally to an image and also remember what attracted and held attention and when you grasped the intended message are not mutually exclusive. I'm known to give rather detailed and analytical critiques, but they are based completely on how I react on an emotional level to the image. My comments are usually focused on ways different technique could deliver the INTENDED message in a clearer, less ambiguous way by eliminating unnecessary distractions from what is responsible on a perceptual / emotional level in the human brain for converting a pattern of contrast on a screen or print into the illusion of a real 3D object or living, breathing person.
How we react to content is subjective. Show a photo of a pretty girl to 100 people and most will react and say "I like it" for no other reason that the girl is pretty. Odds are excellent the fewer clothes she is wearing the more enthusiastic the praise will be. But take that same girl, send her to the tattoo parlor for some artwork on face and body and an even dozen body studs and rings and shoot her in the same exact pose and lighting. Poll those same 100 viewers and reactions will vary depending on their views on body modification. But in either case their brains will process the images in similar ways both image-to-image and person-to-person because all people - within a range of variance - have nervous systems which work the same way to react to visual stimulation and connect the image captured by the eyes to stored memories of similar content.
In both cases the photo could be either technically flawless or have much room for improvement without really affecting the emotional reaction to the content. A pretty girl is no less pretty because an unskilled photographer blew the highlights in the skin tones or captured the face at a less than flattering angle. So its very possible to react on an emotional level and really like the content and creative thought behind a message and also see ways the delivery of the message can be improved.
I've been taking photos seriously for over 40 years now and can count on my fingers and toes the number of shots I would consider flawless and without some opportunity for improvement out of the camera. Back in the "good old days" of B&W we'd manipulate contrast relationships with filters during capture and film development then tweek them with dodging, burning and retouching on the print. Today we do the same things in Photoshop.
Sometimes editing is done to correct things which couldn't be controlled or were overlooked when shooting. But the act of analyzing, self-critiquing and seeing ways to possibly improve the last photo I took is what allows me to see ways I can take the next one better and grow in the the craft. That same philosophy underlies the tutorials I write and critiques I provide: the assumption that there is always opportunity for improvement and growth, if only just to try something different to see if it works more effectively or not.
The act of critiquing a someone else's photo is mutually beneficial. I'm more verbal than visual so I very often see and comment on images I would never in a million years think of or bother to take. But taking the time to understand why I liked it, and what make it resonate for me gets filed away and eventually incorporated at some point in a photo I take, helping to make my work more creative: not in the sense of imitation but rather just opening my mind to consider different ways to deliver messages in photos. That's exactly what makes the work of some of the regular posters here so much fun to look at and comment on.
Some people, regardless of skill level and experience take criticism of craft aspects and differences of opinion on reaction to content well, and others don't. In some cases its because they have a clear artistic vision which accepts and incorporates technical imperfections as part of the artistic expression of the message and others are just rude and clueless. It usually one takes only one critique to discover if someone is rude and clueless. Grasping that less than perfect technique is an intentional part of photographer's artistic approach requires seeing a pattern in a body of work.
Being able to put a single work in to context of an overall style is what differentiates artists like Jackson Pollock from a 2 year-old with his first box of Crayons: the end result might look similar but the creative intent and intended message are radically different. When does a photo transcend from slice of life "snapshot" to art? When it resonates emotionally with enough viewers in both a positive and negative way to attract critical acclaim and financial remuneration. The quickest path to fame as an artist was formerly to be recognized by a patron or recognized critic. Nowadays its how many hits a web page has or how many people phone it to vote for the singer or dancers in the competition.
bsirjani wrote:
I think what Steady was saying was that in the thousands of technically proficient images he has seen here, very few are emotional moving or emotionally proficient. I would agree that the proper exposure can be formulaic, but as Rian said, those technical aspects are also the "artist's tools" and should be used to create the artist's own vision.
I find it much easier to take an in-focus picture that is framed and lit how I want, than to capture the correct expression... just my $.02
Yes, the "art" part of the formula is very difficult. The great photos of any era excel in technique and composition...leading to the reaction of the viewer. Technique and subject matter can grab someone's attention, but we keep coming back to the ones that transcend photography as a tool and get to an emotional reaction...it is an art form and this seems to be true of any art...or sport for that matter. The best make it look easy, and of course it is not even close to easy. But critique by one's fellows is a strong accelerant in the process and while some may not take it well, that is more thier problem than our own...I say keep it coming at any level and on any and all aspects!
The ones that do cause a favorable impression, are more "special" to me than all the others regardless of the technical merits of the image.