[FHPhotographer]

Here's an idea on a way to improve this section:

In a recent post my brief (uninformative) OP comment was "B&W conversion @ 16 bits and roses (flowers) masked." Rereading it, I realized any reasonable person might respond with, yeah, so what? I had posted to a critique section but offered so little information about why I took the image that way and what I hoped to capture that there was no reasonable way to comment on whether I succeeded and what could have been done differently/better.

One of the weaknesses of sites such as PPG is that looking at photographs other people have taken doesn't help you learn how to take better photographs. You want to learn a thing you have to do a thing, and you need somebody to offer informed criticism on what was done, how it could be done differently and ways it might be done better. Looking at a Rembrandt is a pleasure; standing in front of a Rembrandt with a docent who can show you how, or maybe even why it was done that way, is instructive.

My suggestion would be to ask OPs to post not just technical comments, but some narrative on the overall intent: what s/he wanted to capture and why the choices were made on such things as composition, lighting, POV and FOV. Perhaps also encourage commenters to post revisions of the OP image and/or post examples of images that handled the subject differently.

My feeling is that the best part of any photography forum is in sections that actually show the images taken with specific equipment, and that an informed free and open comment & criticism section on how to use that equipment more productively, and how to have specifically done a better job on that subject, is the better part of that process. Or so it seems to me,
Brian

[Ash]

While you have a point Brian, and the story behind certain images like documentary-style/photojournalism and more abstract forms enhances the viewers' experience, most images don't need the narrative to convey what they were intended to convey.

PPG is no standard to go by - it's merely a collection of photos voted upon then ultimately accepted or rejected by some group who have their own subjectivity in play.

It's all about ideas to me - new ideas that expand our thinking beyond what we perceive makes a good photograph. Unfortunately much of the time this gets muddled up with what technicalities make a good image, but this cannot be helped if photos posted here are snapshots, personal photos or just plain bad.

[K-9]

Hopefully, those intending on giving critique to photos here should have some technical experience and be able to spot what was done in a photo, and what can be done to make it better. A good photographic eye can spot issues with a picture, no matter what is explained.

On a side note, is PPG the Pentax Photo Gallery? Sorry, but I'm a sports fan and PPG is automatically points per game to me. You should probably spell it out, as it's not an abbreviation we all know (even a Pentax user).

Perhaps, on reflection, the rose picture you mentioned would have been a better fit in Post Processing because I can't honestly see any other intention in the image than as an exercise in PP.
My understanding of the Critique Section is for an overall critique and the images should speak for themselves, be it as basic as simple composition ranging through to shape and form or narrative. The technical aspect of an image such as exposure and focus are secondary to me. Post processing is the last consideration and the previous two criteria have to have been met.
When it comes to people new to photography, the same rules generally apply but I also try to tailor my comments according to their needs.
There are definitive guidelines for critiquing photographs if anyone cares to look them up.
I don't see a need to 'improve' this section because critique is critique, technical aspects of photography and editing are covered in other areas of PF.

---

Last edited by Damn Brit; 12-02-2009 at 12:43 AM.

[FHPhotographer]

Brit, once again we are in disagreement. There are myriad types and methodology of criticism; the "speak for themselves" approach is just one. If we were to ask the OPs to discuss, even briefly, what they were trying to do I think those with greater experience would be able to offer more help to the beginners.
And by the bye, I'd rather not see moderators making decisions about forum subjects based on the assumed "intention" of the poster, but there again we've gone around on this before,
Brian

Brit, once again we are in disagreement. There are myriad types and methodology of criticism; the "speak for themselves" approach is just one. If we were to ask the OPs to discuss, even briefly, what they were trying to do I think those with greater experience would be able to offer more help to the beginners.
And by the bye, I'd rather not see moderators making decisions about forum subjects based on the assumed "intention" of the poster, but there again we've gone around on this before,
Brian

People are always in disagreement with you, because you're such a square peg in a round hole. Just for your education (but I realise it will be falling on deaf ears because you know much more than the rest of the photographic world don't you) here is a basic set of guidelines for critiquing photographs, there are plenty of variations but they are all fundamentally the same (except yours of course) -

Form and Narrative
This is what the photograph is saying. What is the focus of interest in the photograph? Where does your eye come to rest in viewing the photo? If there is more than one focus point does that add to the photographs interest or does it distract the eye? Where was the importance of interest placed within the frame of the photo? Did the photographer use the rule of thirds? What other eye control elements are in the image (leading lines, contrast, diagonal lines, etc). Did the photographer get close enough to the subject to include only what is important? In other words, are there wasted parts of the frame that contain items not adding to the message of the photo?

The Background
How did the photographer use the tools of selective focus or depth of field to deal with the background? Is the background simplified via graphics or selective focus or is it integral in the photograph? How does the background add or detract from the message of the photo?

Technique
Exposure and focus begin in the camera. Is the subject sharp and clearly in focus? Are the things that need to be sharp, actually sharp?
Is the photo exposed properly and does it provide all of the visual information necessary to tell its story? A properly exposed photo will have some texture and detail in the shadows as well as the highlights.
Output is equally important. Has the photographer controlled the translation from file or film to print in such a way that all details are rendered in an appropriate manner to further the narrative of the image.

Attention to Detail
Is the print clean? If the print was made in an enlarger are the corners sharp, are the edges clean? Does the photo have stains, spots, dust or scratches? This applies to both film and digital.
Is it nicely displayed in the frame or is it just slapped in? Does the photograph look like care was taken in making it?

Your Response to the Image
What do you like about the subject? Is it an emotional shot, a story, a statement, a humorous photo, etc? Is there anything about the photograph that you would do differently if you were the photographer and had the chance to do the same shot? Most importantly, how does the image make you feel? Is it a memorable image? Remember, art doesn’t have to make you feel good, it simply needs to make you feel.

People are always in disagreement with you, because you're such a square peg in a round hole. Just for your education (but I realise it will be falling on deaf ears because you know much more than the rest of the photographic world don't you) here is a basic set of guidelines for critiquing photographs, there are plenty of variations but they are all fundamentally the same (except yours of course) -

Form and Narrative
This is what the photograph is saying. What is the focus of interest in the photograph? Where does your eye come to rest in viewing the photo? If there is more than one focus point does that add to the photographs interest or does it distract the eye? Where was the importance of interest placed within the frame of the photo? Did the photographer use the rule of thirds? What other eye control elements are in the image (leading lines, contrast, diagonal lines, etc). Did the photographer get close enough to the subject to include only what is important? In other words, are there wasted parts of the frame that contain items not adding to the message of the photo?

The Background
How did the photographer use the tools of selective focus or depth of field to deal with the background? Is the background simplified via graphics or selective focus or is it integral in the photograph? How does the background add or detract from the message of the photo?

Technique
Exposure and focus begin in the camera. Is the subject sharp and clearly in focus? Are the things that need to be sharp, actually sharp?
Is the photo exposed properly and does it provide all of the visual information necessary to tell its story? A properly exposed photo will have some texture and detail in the shadows as well as the highlights.
Output is equally important. Has the photographer controlled the translation from file or film to print in such a way that all details are rendered in an appropriate manner to further the narrative of the image.

Attention to Detail
Is the print clean? If the print was made in an enlarger are the corners sharp, are the edges clean? Does the photo have stains, spots, dust or scratches? This applies to both film and digital.
Is it nicely displayed in the frame or is it just slapped in? Does the photograph look like care was taken in making it?

Your Response to the Image
What do you like about the subject? Is it an emotional shot, a story, a statement, a humorous photo, etc? Is there anything about the photograph that you would do differently if you were the photographer and had the chance to do the same shot? Most importantly, how does the image make you feel? Is it a memorable image? Remember, art doesn’t have to make you feel good, it simply needs to make you feel.

By the way, next time you have a suggestion, put it in the suggestion forum please.

[Adam]

Thread is moved to the proper section and closed. Start a new one if you'll all be able to stow the insults.