Beginner How to start reading photos to make good critiques?

MarcosSantana

MarcosSantana

Messages
8
Name
Marcos Santana
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I’m a total beginner in photography and I decided entering a phase called “I don’t even know what I’m supposed to see”. My main issue is that if a photo doesn’t show something or a situation very clearly, I don’t even know where and how to approach it to try to understand.
How do you usually read a photo? Are you looking for composition? Lights? Subjects?
 
Those are things you might see afterwards, when you have a practiced eye. I always think, do I like it, before I start analysing it. Then you can ask yourself why.
 
Last edited:
It's really subjective; I suspect you'll get a slightly different answer from everyone who responds... for me, I'm looking for what the picture makes me feel, first & foremost: it could be the expression on someone's face in a portrait, or the atmosphere of a moody landscape (or just the beauty of a non-moody landscape).

Sometimes it will just be something interesting, like strong colours, or contrasting colours... it might be the composition, and that in itself could be because something is perfectly framed, or because every composition "rule" has been broken.

I'd suggest you just look at as many photos as you can and figure out which ones you like. It might be that photos which are more abstract don't interest you: that's absolutely fine. One of my good friends absolutely hates dead space in his photos, so he'll always crop pretty tightly to the subject. Someone else might let the subject almost get lost in the frame... doesn't mean that one of them is a bad photographer though, it just means they approach it differently.

The main thing as far as I'm concerned is to enjoy yourself :)
 
It’s a really good topic.

In photography / art there’s tons of ideas / concepts / theories / history / approaches. I think successful photographs incorporate some of these ‘things’.

What helped me was looking at photobooks and learning about other photographers. Similar to eating McDonald’s leads to a poor diet and eating gourmet improves your taste, the same applies in Photography imo.. so consume and spend time with great photographs
 
MarcosSantana said:
How do you usually read a photo? Are you looking for composition? Lights? Subjects?
Click to expand...
As you have posted this in the 'Street & Travel' section, I'll answer from the point of 'Street' as that is my interest.
Basically 'critique' is personal opinion and there are as many of those as street photos!
My sole basis is on whether I like what I see and the reasons for liking it will be many and varied - great social scene, great colours, interesting/funny subject etc, etc.
Some of the photos of the so-called 'greats' of 'Street' photography leave me cold, 'Emperor's new clothes' and all that, whereas a simple subject in the street that reflects reality or an interesting slant on life/emotion appeal to me.

If you like it, say why, if you don't, say why - just don't say what you think you ought to say in order to get the approval of others.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
All that needs to be said, really.

I advise against believing that a picture is "good" because someone tells you it is.
Click to expand...
What if lots of people tell you it’s good? Or a publisher wants to make a book of your work? A gallery exhibit..? A critic writes an essay about your picture?
I think for those reasons some objectivity exists and it’s not all subjective,

I’ve no idea where the balance is. I’ve never really bought into the arguenent that says it’s all subjective. I’d argue that objectively good and bad photos exist.

How does one improve their output in if they’re always subjectly happy with their work.
 
Hi Marcos.

Evaluating photos is a skill that will almost certainly change over time the more you do it. Being able to actually articulate why you like (or don't like) a photo is probably the first step. Most of the "rules" of photography were derived from observation. The person who discovered (for example) the rule of thirds did so through observing photos they liked and noticing that many of them had similar "third-like" compositional aspects. If someone asks you why you like a photo and you can say something other than "I don't know" or "I just do" you're on your way.

Ben mentioned studying the work of those who have made a lifelong career from photography. Try and look at the images and ask yourself why you feel the way you do about it. Books are a great place to start. They have been curated first by a photographer and then by an editor (at least) so many eyes have been over the work before it's been shown. Objectively, that is good work - whether you like it or not.

Regarding street photography (for example) take a look at the work of Elliot Erwitt. For me, his images stand out. Once you go from that to YouTube or Instagram, you can immediately begin to see that "someone on a phone" isn't great work - no matter how well it's been lit. The ease of photography and sharing means the internet is awash with complete rubbish with the occasional stand out photographer hidden away. Other genres are even worse.

The echo chamber of the internet is a difficult place to find out what's good. That's why the best place is probably a library. Pick the genre you are interested in then find a photographer that has been working since the 60s and buy/borrow their book.

Of course photography is subjective. But as Ben says, if you're completely happy with your work and subscribe to the "I like it therefore it is good" method of thinking, how will you ever improve? Unless you think you're perfect of course :)

Edit to add: You also mentioned critique. Some people are happy with their photos and don't want or ask for crit. My advice is to leave them to it! Giving crit to people who ask for it also requires them to explain a little about what they were trying to achieve. Giving crit on standalone photos with no accompanying explanation is very difficult to do well. It's possible with some genres (like portraits) where the outcome may be clearer, but "silhouetted man walking down a train platform" is much harder.
 
Last edited:
Photographs 'work' on many levels, some contradictory. Context also plays a big part. As someone wrote; Photographs are slippery.

A photograph can be 'good' because it shows a loved one who is no longer around as it shows them the way you remember them. From a technical point of view it might be out of focus and underexposed. It might be poorly framed, with part of a hand cut off. It wouldn't make the grade as a camera club exhibition print, but that is irrelevant as a personal memento mori.

Equally, a poorly exposed, badly framed. out of focus picture could make it as an exhibition print in a photography gallery if it had been made (or appropriated) as part of an art project that is (in artspeak) interrogating the nature of vernacular photography.

A similar photograph could also be considered 'good' in a photojournalism context if it showed something unique and historically important.

Saying that appreciating photographs is subjective is a cop out for people who don't want to look any deeper than the surface. Which is fine for them. But thinking more about photographs can be rewarding for others.
 
benc98 said:
What if lots of people tell you it’s good?
Click to expand...
You need to define "lots" in this context.
benc98 said:
Or a publisher wants to make a book of your work?
Click to expand...
Then s/he thinks it's saleable. Once the book's been published, the sales figures will give you a metric.
benc98 said:
A gallery exhibit..?
Click to expand...
Again, it means that one person or even a committee, feel(s) it should be exhibited.
benc98 said:
A critic writes an essay about your picture?
Click to expand...
Then you'll know what one person thinks about that image.
benc98 said:
I think for those reasons some objectivity exists and it’s not all subjective,
Click to expand...
I hope I've shown that there is no objectivity involved. It's all down to the personal opinion of each viewer. In some cases several people will agree but in all cases, you'll never know how many people disagree.
benc98 said:
How does one improve their output in if they’re always subjectly happy with their work.
Click to expand...
I think that depends entirely on how you define "improve" in this context. If your intention is to sell pictures, you'll get a hard metric from your sales figures and you can define "good" in those terms. If you are someone who enters competitions, your placing in those competitions will give you a hard metric of a different kind.

However, whatever metric you choose, it will be subjective at the bottom.
 
benc98 said:
What if lots of people tell you it’s good? Or a publisher wants to make a book of your work? A gallery exhibit..? A critic writes an essay about your picture?
I think for those reasons some objectivity exists and it’s not all subjective,

I’ve no idea where the balance is. I’ve never really bought into the arguenent that says it’s all subjective. I’d argue that objectively good and bad photos exist.

How does one improve their output in if they’re always subjectly happy with their work.
Click to expand...

You don't always have to be happy with your work. I've taken photos that I'm very proud of, and I've taken others that I think are bad, either because there's a technical flaw - missed focus or something - or it just doesn't work/isn't interesting.

For me, improving is about getting technically better - improving my focus hit rate, holding the camera more still, exposing better etc.; and also about improving my eye, so that I end up with more shots I'm pleased with and fewer that go in the bin.

Just because something is commercially successful/exhibited/published/whatever, doesn't automatically make it good.
 
It's also entirely dependent on what you photograph. If it's landscape it will be separation, if it is architecture it might be lines and shadow. Unless you know what your interest is, it's very difficult to advise anyone. Possibly the best advice is to get stuck in. Because these things only form over time.
 
benc98 said:
I’ve never really bought into the arguenent that says it’s all subjective. I’d argue that objectively good and bad photos exist.

.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Some may not like the Mona Lisa, but it's objectively a good painting.

There are many photos that some people think are wonderful but the photos might have been badly composed, or have poor lighting, or have uninspired, uninteresting subject matter, or shot from too far away, or any myriad of things. Some people are more easily pleased than others though and that's fair enough. They're still looking at objectively bad photos. I cringe at some of my earliest photos that I used to think were good because I see them with a different and more experienced eye now. And I'm pleased I do!

But there are photos which are undeniably and objectively good as you quite rightly said. The kind of photos that really make you want to look at them for a long time. The amount of people around the world that like these pictures and understand that they're really good technically and creatively I believe outweigh the "oh it's all subjective" crowd. Steve McCurry's Afghan Girl, Alex Webb's work and Sebastiao Salgado are imo examples of objectively good photography.
 
Merlin5 said:
Steve McCurry's Afghan Girl, Alex Webb's work and Sebastiao Salgado are imo examples of objectively good photography.
Click to expand...
But not found by the average Joe on the local High Street. ;)

Unlike many other genres, which can be worked with, street photography depends on what you come across on the day.
Sure you can choose not to save/post anything but I don't see that as constructive ... now if we had crit here like we used to then it might be different,
It also doesn't help just to moan but not produce anything.
 
MarcosSantana said:
Hi all,

I’m a total beginner in photography and I decided entering a phase called “I don’t even know what I’m supposed to see”. My main issue is that if a photo doesn’t show something or a situation very clearly, I don’t even know where and how to approach it to try to understand.
How do you usually read a photo? Are you looking for composition? Lights? Subjects?
Click to expand...
I couldn't care less for the rules or how it's meant to be shot etc .....I judge a photo on how it makes me feel when I look at it , if I feel nothing then for me it's a boring uninteresting shot regardless of how technicality good it may be . That in its self is why photography is so personal and why I take what the "experts" say with a pinch of salt
 
stumac said:
I couldn't care less for the rules or how it's meant to be shot etc .....I judge a photo on how it makes me feel when I look at it , if I feel nothing then for me it's a boring uninteresting shot regardless of how technicality good it may be . That in its self is why photography is so personal and why I take what the "experts" say with a pinch of salt
Click to expand...
100% agree. excluding the obvious technical errors (it's unintentionally out of focus and so on) it's what YOU think that counts, the same with any art form.

Was Tracey Emin's My Bed a work of art worthy a Tuner prize nomination or just a unkempt bed, Is Banksy's tree mural a statement piece or just some green paint daubed on a wall. Ansel Adams technically clever for the time and equipment, but are they just black and white photos of a mountain.

It's all in the mind of the viewer and not just what some supposed expert tells you. Something can be technically brilliant but as boring as hell.
I think there is a tendency of Emperor's New Clothes in most art forms.
 
Last edited:
Harlequin565 said:
Being able to actually articulate why you like (or don't like) a photo is probably the first step.
Click to expand...

Probably the main step, look at photos and see why you like them, and if they fit into any of the general "rules" that would help.

Being able to say a photo is good I don't think takes any special skill (unless you are judging the technical aspects), most people will judge a good photo good, whether they know nothing about photography or are experts, but the experts will know why it is good to most people.
 
I wonder if the idea of a "good photograph" is a vestige of photographers attempting to be painters; at the same time as painters, in reponse to photography, moved away from realism and towards abstraction.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
All that needs to be said, really.

I advise against believing that a picture is "good" because someone tells you it is.
Click to expand...
This ! Someone above mentioned "Afghan girl" no doubt it's a nice shoot but if it was posted by someone on this forum it would get a dozen "lovely shot , look at those eyes comments " and that's as far as it would get .
Sometimes images are classed as great because of who took them . My opinion anyway
 
MarcosSantana said:
Hi all,

I’m a total beginner in photography and I decided entering a phase called “I don’t even know what I’m supposed to see”. My main issue is that if a photo doesn’t show something or a situation very clearly, I don’t even know where and how to approach it to try to understand.
How do you usually read a photo? Are you looking for composition? Lights? Subjects?
Click to expand...

Since you're in street I assume that's just what you're interested in reviewing.

Street pictures should tell a story: about someone's character, what they're doing or going to do, about a scene unfolding or a situation. They may sometimes be more about the graphic image than simply a people story. If people are the subject more than the situation then they should connect to the viewer.

Light, composition, subjects all need to work to tell the viewer story - it's not enough to simply plonk a person in the centre of the image in dull lighting and expect them to speak to the viewer. Show them in a crowd if that's key to the story. If they need to be alone to tell the story then they should show separation. Light should be used to catch, to hold, to emphasise, to hide. Composition - are they in a powerful place in the picture or hidden like an afterthought at the edge? Is their placement awkward and subractive or strong and additive?

Technique and being technically 'perfect': If technique or equipment is not what stands out about the picture then it is most likely successful, but if the first thing that is noticed about the image is poor technique or processing then the image is already a failure before anyone has even seen it. Good enough is fine with perfection quite un-necessary, but not good enough simply isn't.

A good photo can make the ordinary seem amazing, a poor photo will make the extraordinary seem dull.

stumac said:
Someone above mentioned "Afghan girl" no doubt it's a nice shoot but if it was posted by someone on this forum it would get a dozen "lovely shot , look at those eyes comments " and that's as far as it would get .
Click to expand...

It's a powerful portrait, but the situation it was shot in and the exposure it was given assured that picture iconic status. If it were someone's daughter on here, well fed and clothed, then yes, we'd say "nice photo" because there would be nothing exceptional about the circumstances it was taken in. It was also taken at a time when photography had a much higher value, when it was a closed book to ordinary people who would use their point-and-shoots and then wait a week to get crappy enprints from Boots or Truprint.

 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Street pictures should tell a story: about someone's character, what they're doing or going to do, about a scene unfolding or a situation. They may sometimes be more about the graphic image than simply a people story. If people are the subject more than the situation then they should connect to the viewer.

Light, composition, subjects all need to work to tell the viewer story - it's not enough to simply plonk a person in the centre of the image in dull lighting and expect them to speak to the viewer. Show them in a crowd if that's key to the story. If they need to be alone to tell the story then they should show separation. Light should be used to catch, to hold, to emphasise, to hide. Composition - are they in a powerful place in the picture or hidden like an afterthought at the edge? Is their placement awkward and subractive or strong and additive?

Technique and being technically 'perfect': If technique or equipment is not what stands out about the picture then it is most likely successful, but if the first thing that is noticed about the image is poor technique or processing then the image is already a failure before anyone has even seen it. Good enough is fine with perfection quite un-necessary, but not good enough simply isn't.

A good photo can make the ordinary seem amazing, a poor photo will make the extraordinary seem dull.
Click to expand...
100% agree with this. I've mentioned before the term "street photography" is usually actually Social Reportage - telling a story of socials interacting with or in the street through a still image. There are so many photo out there put in the street photography genre that are really just a photo taken outside with some people in it What sets a photo apart is that it has a purpose for being taken. I ran a social reportage course about a year ago where the premise was to send the delegates out to take some "street photos" for about 60 minutes having only mentioned they were intended to be "social reportage". They came back and we reviewed the images, they were mostly bland having fired off about 100 images each. Then the additional advice was to 'shoot with purpose', ask yourself why am i taking this particular scene, what makes it interesting. The next set of photos where they were sent out for about 2 more hours were infinity better. The overall shot count was down to about 20 for the 2 hrs.
 
Go to a library (If any still exist) grab a bunch of photography books (and by that I mean books by photographers of their work and not photography technique books) and flick through the pages.
The "Flick through the pages." bit is key. Don't study each photo, just flick through at about a second each, eventually one will make you stop, study that one a bit harder and work out what made you stop...that's the begining of photo appreciation.*


* Just my opinion you understand.
 
Last edited:
Plain Nev said:
Possibly the best advice is to get stuck in. Because these things only form over time.
Click to expand...
I agree.

In my opinion, "Rule 1" of photography is: "there are no rules". One man's "great picture" is another woman's "does nothing for me" and that, I think, is a very good thing indeed.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I agree.

In my opinion, "Rule 1" of photography is: "there are no rules". One man's "great picture" is another woman's "does nothing for me" and that, I think, is a very good thing indeed.
Click to expand...
and a photo that wins a camera club photo competition for being technically excellent may not reap any commercial reward, and vice versa.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Here's an interesting read about reading a photograph. It'll no doubt provoke a load of 'pretentious nonsense' comments.
Click to expand...
The picture makes a good point but I think you're right about Dyer's blethering... :coat:
 
ancient_mariner said:
Since you're in street I assume that's just what you're interested in reviewing.

Street pictures should tell a story: about someone's character, what they're doing or going to do, about a scene unfolding or a situation. They may sometimes be more about the graphic image than simply a people story. If people are the subject more than the situation then they should connect to the viewer.
Click to expand...
I'm glad somebody got to this point. A good photograph should be "about" something, not "of " something.
 
I bought this book last year to help with my studies - Reading Photographs: An Introduction to the Theory and Meaning of Images (Basics Creative Photography) - you might be able to get it on the cheap if you look at world of books.
It'll help with decoding images, semiotics, looks at ideas around the gaze, etc.. - not so much the technical photo stuff - but you know, a photograph can be packed with meaning and information despite being a 'technically' bad photo
 
Ed Sutton said:
:D Here's an interesting read about reading a photograph. It'll no doubt provoke a load of 'pretentious nonsense' comments. :exit:

www.theguardian.com

Geoff Dyer: ‘A gas mask on a tree stopped me in my tracks – it shows the air itself can be toxic’

A recent Guardian news story on the Russian use of poison gas in Ukraine featured an arresting photograph that spoke to me of the anonymity of war
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
His basic premise seems sound, then his prosaic ramblings elevate it into pretentious tripe. A bit like this post. :D
 
Something it might be helpful for the op to do is look at the kinds of photos the different posters in this thread present here on TP. See which posters produce pictures that speak to them, then follow that advice. No point in following the advice of someone who makes pictures you don't feel a connection with.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Something it might be helpful for the op to do is look at the kinds of photos the different posters in this thread present here on TP. See which posters produce pictures that speak to them, then follow that advice. No point in following the advice of someone who makes pictures you don't feel a connection with.
Click to expand...
as well as to whom those posters reference as a source of admiration in the genre - eg I like Alan Schaller's stuff
 
jamesev said:
100% agree with this. I've mentioned before the term "street photography" is usually actually Social Reportage - telling a story of socials interacting with or in the street through a still image. .
Click to expand...

Street photography doesn't actually have to be on a street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top