photo analysis - << PLEASE NOTE MOD NOTE POST #22 >>

red_ice

I’m doing an analysis of a body of work and I’m just wondering what you guys would tend to look at when you look at work. Aside from the obvious – lighting, dof, angle, subject...

What’s in your head when you are looking at something? Is there anything that is often overlooked in photography that should be talked about?

Or is it like most other things in that there is no proper way to crit/review work, it’s down to what you like and that’s all that matters? I know the latter is my view, but I’m sure there has to be an unwritten list that gets checked to define a good photo...

Cheers

challengemaster

a) Idea when shooting
b) Photo

Make b = a

dazftw

If they photo could talk, what would it say?

When I was in college it was all about explaining your reasoning behind taking a photo or talking about one. It doesn't matter how crazy it could have sounded as long as you backed up your statements with factual points.

Thecageyone

Quite simply: Does this image grab me, in any way, and why?

It is then down to your personal opinion. there's too much snottiness and pixel peeping in photography today. Everyone's an expert and always more willing to find any tiny fault rather than just take an image as a whole.

It really depends, are you assessing on how pleasing to the eye the images are? Or doing it from that more technical, stand offish point of view? I mean, will you get your grid out to check the rule of thirds?

Say it as you see it, now how you think you should.

DaireQuinlan

Thecageyone wrote: »

It really depends, are you assessing on how pleasing to the eye the images are? Or doing it from that more technical, stand offish point of view? I mean, will you get your grid out to check the rule of thirds?

Right. So context doesn't matter, the photographers statement on the body of work doesn't matter. The rest of the pieces that might form some sort of linked theme or narrative don't matter. Just whether or not a picture is 'pleasing to the eye' or whether it satisfies some conventional and stultifying 'rules'.

<SNIP>

Kintarō Hattori

It all depends on what I'm photographing and what state of mind I'm in at the time. Sometimes I can see the end result before I take a photo and I aim to capture that as best I possibly can. Other times I want to try and convey something to the viewer and that can be difficult to capture.

I can appreciate that with photography there are two discreet camps. There is the type of photographer who sees a good photo and tries to capture it to the best of their ability. It's all about the end result with them.

On the other hand there is the artful photographer who is distinctly different from the first and they want to send a message to the viewer, their work has a different meaning and this type of photography is a for me a lot more difficult to undertake.

Thecageyone wrote: »

It is then down to your personal opinion. there's too much snottiness and pixel peeping in photography today. Everyone's an expert and always more willing to find any tiny fault rather than just take an image as a whole.

I don't think that's completely true. I find the photography forum and 99% of the people I've met as a result of the hobby to be incredibly helpful. Sure there will always be one eejit but to say that's there's an awful lot of snottiness just isn't true..... in my opinion.

CabanSail

I feel that a balance needs to be reached between technical competancy and artistic merit in an image. The problem arises in that these two elements are intertwined and neither can stand alone, though I have seen some judges try.

There seems to be quite a few people who judge on the camera club circuit who lean a long way over the the technical aspects of am image and seem to have only scant regard for the message the image is attempting to communicate. Then you will see some Arty Types who sing the praises of images where basic photographic technique has been thrown out the window.

In my opinion a photograph has to meet technical criterea which will allow it to tell it's story but there is not much point to an image which is technically perfect but has no soul. There must be a balance between the two, the trouble is that assessing by numbers is the easy way to go as then the Judge does not need to have an opinion.

Thecageyone

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I don't think that's completely true. I find the photography forum and 99% of the people I've met as a result of the hobby to be incredibly helpful. Sure there will always be one eejit but to say that's there's an awful lot of snottiness just isn't true..... in my opinion.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about this forum, but more in general. Unfortunately it's what I have found to be the case. I know there's loads of helpful people, I've met them too. But there's as many, dare I say again, elitists, in the field. Your round about way of calling me an eeejit because I have a strong opinion doesn't surprise me at all.

Then again, there's people who have never met me get the total wrong impression about my ideas and opinion based on a few posts in a forum. That is a bit sad.

I can appreciate an image as much for it's technical standard as I can for it's artistry. I don't believe there's 2 definitive camps at all. You can be both.

Kintarō Hattori

That eejit comment wasn't directed at you. There are eejits in any field, no matter what someone does. Also I wasn't just talking about this forum but photography on the whole.

Honestly that eejit comment was not directed at you. I'm bigger than that.

Thecageyone

Fair enough, it's just I was the only one here mentioned elitism. Which, again, was not aimed at anyone here, but more in general. There are elitists in all walks and areas of life, it's just fact. It happens. I've seen nasty comments on people's images on Flickr like "This is atrocious, your horizon is off and your subject is dead central, terrible" ... or "Have you any idea how to expose properly? This is horrible" etc ... And the images were actually, IMHO, very nice. that is what i was initially getting at. Sometimes an image doesn't have to have anything technically brilliant about it to be a great image/picture.

melekalikimaka

its not elitism. personally the only form of critique i value is negative, i dont like the 'oh thats pretty' comments, i wand the ones that pic out the flaws, many here i value their opinion, proven excellent photographers with great eye for details, and also alot would be up with the more artistic elements of looking at an image, context, juxtification, reference to other forms of art. there is certainly two camps when it comes to comments on images, you can take it for face value, or you can look at it deeper.

Thecageyone

Nobody said there was anything wrong with constructive criticism though. Negative for the sake of it isn't helpful, not when it offers no advice. Some negative comments are just ignorance for the sake of it.

You get it in forums too, people checking exif data to nit-pick at the processing or setting used. I imagine that's why a lot of people hide theirs? I never bother to, if they're going to bother checking, there was either something they wanted to learn from the image or I'd hope they were looking to offer suggestions as to there I could improve, not just where i went wrong.

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

Nobody said there was anything wrong with constructive criticism though. Negative for the sake of it isn't helpful, not when it offers no advice. Some negative comments are just ignorance for the sake of it.

You get it in forums too, people checking exif data to nit-pick at the processing or setting used. I imagine that's why a lot of people hide theirs? I never bother to, if they're going to bother checking, there was either something they wanted to learn from the image or I'd hope they were looking to offer suggestions as to there I could improve, not just where i went wrong.

thats also true. but tbh in all the years here there has only be one one who i would consider an ass and negative for the sake 'shrimp', he's gone now. There was the whole gang wars here for a while, maybe 2 years ago, thats passed aswell. things are goin good as a whole, i do see yourself getting the odd bit, but really, its kinda going both ways

humberklog

1st questions that come to my mind when looking at others work when hanging in print is...

Position: why did they choose that height and angle. Or was it given any more consideration other than that's the height of the tripod and this is where I'm standing.

Is the pic selected from a bunch of 30 or so shots of much the same subject and this is the least worst?

Thecageyone

melekalikimaka wrote: »

thats also true. but tbh in all the years here there has only be one one who i would consider an ass and negative for the sake 'shrimp', he's gone now. There was the whole gang wars here for a while, maybe 2 years ago, thats passed aswell. things are goin good as a whole, i do see yourself getting the odd bit, but really, its kinda going both ways

Course it is, because I stand up for myself Doesn't make me an ass, just not a Dog to be kicked.

spinandscribble

I usually ask myself "have I seen this before, done in the same way?".

If I have I have no interest.

If I have not, then i pick together what makes this work unique.

Its the same whether i look at photography or any art form in 2d, 3d, I want to see if a work can stand alone without a statement. It should be interesting enough that you don't need to say anything to justify having done it. Thats not to say you can't but it should work without it in my opinion.

Thecageyone

Pretty much same here. I view images as I would a painting first off. Do 'I' like it, and why. I'll admire a beautiful image long before questioning what settings/gear/processing was used. Sometimes I just don't care how it got there, once th end result is Gorgeous.

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

Course it is, because I stand up for myself Doesn't make me an ass, just not a Dog to be kicked.

ah i'm not saying your an ass at all, just these places can be tricky, arty folk and their ideologies can lead to personality clashes.

spinandscribble

I like things that make me think or challenge me. A good piece of visual art work needs to be arresting in some way but as it is the case usually, that means it doesn't usually fall into the Gorgeous category, for me. I dunno basically I don't mind if what I make or do isn't pretty as long as its arresting. If it was pretty and no substance I'd feel like i'd failed to meet my priorities. My priorities are different as a intermedia art student compared to a photographer(amateur/professional).

spinandscribble

melekalikimaka wrote: »

ah i'm not saying your an ass at all, just these places can be tricky, arty folk and their ideologies can lead to personality clashes.

I take this place with a pinch of salt tbh, i think the clashes are pointless but entertaining lol.
I don't see the elitism that cagey mentions from time to time and tbh I come on here to see photographs and read about camera stuff so maybe I'm not affected lol.

Thecageyone

Not seeing it doesn't make it not happen But I did state I wasn't referring to here alone.

I come here for the same reason, I just have a few fans who like to try challenge me at every turn, for no apparent reason *cough*jealousy*cough*

CabanSail

Please keep this thread on topic.

It's an interesting topic that deserves intelligent and considered discussion. Personal bickering can derail that and will not be tolerated.

I have had to clean this thread up once already. If more is required then it's more than just posts which will eliminated.

dave66

red_ice wrote: »

Or is it like most other things in that there is no proper way to crit/review work, it’sdown to what you like and that’s all that matters? I know the latter is my view, but I’m sure there has to be an unwritten list that gets checked to define a good photo...

Cheers

Without a doubt whether or not you like it will have an impact on your review, I would think that it could be difficult to be unbiased, if you like it would you be more likely to overlook technical problems/issues or if you don't like it are you likely to spot every single blemish and/or technical issue. You mentioned that it's a body of work, is there supposed to be a theme running through the whole body of work, if so then I guess one thing you need to consider is if the theme can be identified from the work?

Sure there are "rules" such as the good old rule of thirds, but as we all know, breaking the rules sometimes makes for a more striking image. Similarly, sometimes the technical aspects may not be precise but does that actually detract from the image? Recently a work colleague came to be as he had joined a Camera Club and had been asked to submit some images into a club event. He's relatively new to photography and had a limited pool of images to draw from, one he was submitting was a very nice landscape of a lake in a valley (in Spain) not unlike the upper lake in Glendalough, the DOF/Focus was not spot on but the "softness" actually added to the image, he liked it as did I, but I did mention that the judges would probably point to the softness and comment that it was not sharp enough, and they did. To me, they were looking at the technical aspects, not the image. It didn't make them wrong, but it also didn't make the image a poor image.

I don't envy you doing the review, I guess it will be a matter of finding the right balance between "judging" the technical and aesthetic qualities of the images. I think that rather than there not being a proper way to critique/review, it's more a case that there are many different ways to critique/review and all you can do is do your best to be fair and do it your way.

Promac

First thing I'd ask myself is "What's the purpose?". Is it art or documentary or advertisement or journalism, etc?

You can't judge an image on nothing but the image itself. You need context. If you don't get any then you have to assume it's being put forward as art and judge it accordingly.

It's like music or any other form of creativity. A great pop song would probably be a terrible national anthem or TV News show jingle but it's still a great pop song.

challengemaster

Saying that something has to comply to every 'rule' of photography to be good is insane, really. You'd just end up with a load of bland, unimaginative photos that all start to look the same. The most important thing is what the initial idea was when shooting. That's what makes photos unique/individual. If you make photography all about technicalities then it stops being fun/creative/artistic.

But...that said, you can't justify every crap photo by saying 'but thats what I meant to do'.

As dave66 says, there's a time when you need to look at the picture as a whole, and realise that every technical fault doesn't make the picture worse. If you're able to look at a landscape, and say something like "horizon in the middle of the photo, somewhat OOF, but it gives it a nice effect" then you're not doing too badly.

Promac wrote: »

It's like music or any other form of creativity. A great pop song would probably be a terrible national anthem or TV News show jingle but it's still a great pop song.

I dunno... somehow I think this would make a pretty awesome national anthem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkQRVeRdyWs

:pac:

I'd agree that context is somewhat important, but only in a way that if it's being presented as a photograph, it should stand on its own merits.

4sb

If it's a coherent body of work then that might make it more straight forward.

I agree with Promac that the purpose of the body of work is a starting point. As part of that I would think about the genre(s) of photography represented, the intended audience and the forum / medium used to present that work (art gallery, flickr, camera club competition as examples).

Things like technique, style, composition would come into it at that stage, but also my personal opinions as to whether they help / hinder the purpose.

My 2c anyway.

gerk86

For me the work has to be visual. Personally, I appreciate and can look at abstract work but for me I need a well written brief to see the work the way its meant to be seen. Honetly i don't think i've the patience to stand in a gallery projecting my incorrect assumptions on what the work is about only to walk away more confused than I came in.

This is why I prefer street photograpy. Photographs of pure aesthetic which I can enjoy without the burden of reading too deeply. For me it's easier just to appreciate a perfect composition.

not suprising then that this is what im aspiring to... in-public.com

sheesh

red_ice wrote: »

I’m doing an analysis of a body of work and I’m just wondering what you guys would tend to look at when you look at work. Aside from the obvious – lighting, dof, angle, subject...

What’s in your head when you are looking at something? Is there anything that is often overlooked in photography that should be talked about?

Or is it like most other things in that there is no proper way to crit/review work, it’s down to what you like and that’s all that matters? I know the latter is my view, but I’m sure there has to be an unwritten list that gets checked to define a good photo...

Cheers

anyway back onto the original topic

ok so i'm looking at the photo:

is it immediately striking? yes/no
if yes what is striking about it?

if no: have a second look at the pic what it about what does it look like the photographer is trying to achieve.

does that work? yes/ no.

what are the apparent circumstances of the shot for the photographer? - street photography (little control) or studio setup with professional model with professional make up and hair (quiet alot of control).

it might go on for a while..........


each time I am looking for a little *plink* of pleasure or some sort of emotional impact from the photograph. it could be something I have not seen before like in the 'National Geographic' photographs where they show animals in wonderful detail.