Criticizing a photograph

[Bill_1856]

Photographs should be criticised on at least three points: technical, aesthetic, and cultural. Commercial work should certainly be evaluated in a different manner than personal images, but that doesn't mean that different criteria should apply, just how the various points are weighted. Sometimes it helps to know what the photographer had in mind, sometimes it's misleading.
In the long run, the only really important matter is "is it interesting?" with the caveat that what one person finds quite fascinating may be totally boring to another.

[John Kasaian]

If your print came out like you wanted it to, then the criticism you recieved isn't worth a fig.

I think your photo is pretty cool with powerful tones and textures and perspective that makes your photo interesting.

Anyone play acting at being an art critic shouldn't use foul language or sweeping generalizations like "...it dosen't work..." Such shenannigans tell us more about the critic than the print and really, who cares about the critic? Well, maybe his mom.

I wonder what your "critic" would say if Merrill Lynch bought it for an ad campaign?

[Darin Boville]

The question I would ask you is this: What about his "criticism" bothers you? Do you think that you are just insecure about your work (something time will cure) or did he strike a nerve (however immature his attempt at making an intelligent comment about your work)? Obviously it is bothering you for some reason--maybe make this an opportunity to ask yourself what you are doing, photography-wise, where you are going and where you want to go.

And pretty much ignore the comments of others, especially if you don't admire their own work.

I once put up a photo on the web of a bell pepper, in black and white. A distorted sort of thing (the veggy, not the pict), filling the frame. I called it "Pepper No. 31."

I recieved the funniest e-mails. People sent me notes--really pissed off sometimes--lecturing me on Weston's famous "Pepper No. 30." They would bring their great understanding of photo history to offer insights into my work (for my benefit). Several cursed at me. I don't think anything else I've posted has caused such a strong reaction!

Are you doing it for them or are you doing it for you?

--Darin

[darr]

400d: if you ever plan on going into the visual arts as a profession, you will either get a tough skin for critiques or drop out because your psyche can't handle the abuse. There are other professions just as bad or even worse as far as bomb throwing on one's ego goes. I have made a career in the visual arts business (graphics, illustrations, photography) and found the school playground was some good preparation for some of the critiquing, but I learned that having an understanding of where the critique originated from helps to sort them out.

For instance, when a client makes a critique, I listen for the business sense of it; when a fellow working artist helps me to see another perspective, I have an opened mind; but, when an amateur (their income is not made from the visual arts) makes a ridicule that will include unprofessional words or name calling, well, I totally wear ear muffs from that point on. The critique the student made of your work was in my opinion unprofessional.

I like your picture's originality and I'll explain to you what I mean by originality: you are not the first to see the bull statue, but you are one that sees as new what is old, long familiar, seen and overlooked by everybody. To me this is what distinguishes a truly original mind. Thank you for showing it and for taking the time to share your experience. I hope you choose to grow lizard skin and carry a set of ear muffs because you are a good photographer.

[Mark Sampson]

A fine photograph of a difficult subject. Well seen, technically well-executed.
...One of the good ways to evaluate the work of roll-film photographers is to study their contact sheets- to see the varying ways they approached, and dealt with, their subject. With that in mind, I'd like to see any other views you made at the same time (if you did). Over many years, I've learned that one of my failings as a LF shooter is to make only one view, and then wish I'd made variations long after the fact.l

[Ken Lee]

I am worrying that, geesh after all, do I really suck being a photographer?

Don't worry. Be happy. There are no standards.

Just feel fullfilled if your vision grows or deepens over time.

[400d]

Thanks for everyone's insightful comment!

For some reason I think I have this depressing cycle every once a while, it's like I look at my work and think, man this ain't no improvement!
I set high standard for my work. I don't enjoy flattering comment (not referring to any of you), I love to hear people pointing out how my work can be improved, it's a real way to learn and improve. I started off with 35mm and now want to focus on large format; large format is the real deal for me, right now I feel that 35mm (film or digital) are all snapshots. You know how much one can tweak for a scene on a view camera.
I have to learn criticizing photographs. I have spent some time reading books about composition but not criticizing photograph. I can't really tell how good or bad is the angle/composition in my work.

Photographs should be criticised on at least three points: technical, aesthetic, and cultural. Commercial work should certainly be evaluated in a different manner than personal images, but that doesn't mean that different criteria should apply, just how the various points are weighted. Sometimes it helps to know what the photographer had in mind, sometimes it's misleading.

This truly is a fair view to criticize a photograph, I will keep this in mind. Right now I don't know how to justify my own work's aesthetic value...I try to be focus on the technical side most of the time.

400d: if you ever plan on going into the visual arts as a profession, you will either get a tough skin for critiques or drop out because your psyche can't handle the abuse. There are other professions just as bad or even worse as far as bomb throwing on one's ego goes. I have made a career in the visual arts business (graphics, illustrations, photography) and found the school playground was some good preparation for some of the critiquing, but I learned that having an understanding of where the critique originated from helps to sort them out.

I am an engineering science student (previously electrical engineering) but I am really into photography. I would say doing it professionally may not be something I love, but maybe one day I will be a photojournalist.

On the technical side, the photograph was taken in March, 2006, at 4:23am. I didn't plan to use my Crown Graphics to take picture that night. But I end up wandering around the streets in NYC. At the time I got to lower Manhattan, there was a heavy fog, it was the first time I see something like that.
I spent about 25 mins for getting the shot set up, the exposure was 15s f11 with the Ilford Delta 100 film. The lens I use is a true "heart attacker", since the shutter on B may close right away after releasing it, so I have to release the shutter couple of times before the actual exposure, hoping the shutter would stay open during the real exposure. The film was scan on a horrifying HP scanner which is by no means a serious film scanner, there are handful of newton rings on the image file, that's why I keep the image small.

And, for 25 mins I was worrying about the fog was gonna disappear, the shutter, and waiting for no disturbing passing-by traffic; and ekk, and as Patrik Roseen said, a popsicle stick?! (Or whatever it is) That was something I missed..

Oh and this is a snapshot from my little digital camera, same angle:


On a second note, I did take another picture before this one:

This is another image I spent 25 mins on...
The white flare is distracting from above.

Thanks for the warm welcome everyone. There is a lot I can learn from all of you.

[Paul Coppin]

I personally like your last picture the best - not easy to coax arrogance out of an inanimate object. Ignore the opinions of college students. For now, their/your minds are mush. Do be objective however about the substance of the criticism. One of the most valuable skills you can learn at college, now that you're gaining some knowledge, is to learn to step outside of yourself and examine your own work objectively. Don't however, be in a hurry to find "yourself" photographically. With a bit of luck, you'll enjoy spending the rest of your life doing that.

Regardless of who critiques your work, remember its just their opinion. The world will always provide the opinion you want to hear. Learn to form your own, it really is as valid as anyone else's.

[PigleT]

Responses starting with "I like" are pointing out their limitations honestly

That said: one book I really like is David Ward's _Landscape Within_. He has one phrase that jumps out a mile, "connote more than you denote". If your photo makes me jump back and think about its dashing composition and powerful lines, as these do, you've succeeded in conveying the connotation of power / energy, or something. (Contrariwise, if all I could say was "oh look, a snap of a bull in a street", you would've failed. Neither your nor the student's photo are that bad, be grateful

[Janko Belaj]

Dear 400D, my english is somewhat limited, so I just have to start with phrase "I like you picture"... I have studied history of art and learned (I hope) to judge some work/artwork at several levels. Stages.
The first one is iconographic (not sure if that is right word) - important if artwork has a name or is previously thematically described and very important if the artwork is unnamed. So, what I can see here is a bull on the rough street. lights in the fog... (*remember this when we came to the technical part) and, unfortunately some cable in the dark sky. The bull is waiting...?
Then I look (I was "told" to do so) at the tones (or forms if we are evaluating sculpture/architecture) in the picture (artwork). Tones on your photo are very "classic" - lighten left part easy calls our aye in to the picture, and heavy and massive dark tones on the right side are holding our view in the picture. "top-lights" (specular lights? I'm not sure for the term in english) on the bull in upper part of picture helps keeping our view too.
At the end, I came to the technical part of shot - I would like to see more sharpness in front plane (specially on the street) than in the back (specially lights close to the bulls nose). *here comes back iconographic part of judgement: I can see the bull looking in to the night. In to the fog. And here comes my "visual... expectations(?)"... (sorry on my english) - What is so far away in the street, and in the fog, and in the night "shouldn't" be so clear as those distant lights. Maybe the bull have seen something up there? Maybe, but we can't see what there might be...
And that is (besides that unfortunate, but easily removable cable) the only "drawback" of yours, otherwise good, eye-catching and interesting shot.
"Are you suck being a photographer?" I don't think so.