 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
629 online
Server Time:
2024-04-18 23:34:21
|
|
|
 Kelwyn
 
Location: DC Metro area
Gender: Male
Jackass of all trades.
 |  |  | On critiquing the artistry of photos
< on 1/6/2006 10:44 PM >
|  | | | Servo mentioned in http://www.uer.ca/...d=1&threadid=26252 something about the not discussing the artistic qualities of the photos posted. The term "lomography" was used, and since I'd never seen it before, I thought I'd take a look at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomography has a pretty nice description, and I enjoyed seeing the ten rules listed there. I generally don't like the feel of shapshots. I know that I tend to spend a fair amount of time lining shots up, so when I am critiquing, I tend to think of how I would have lined things up to make a more art-ful picture. In my mind, I'm thinking "what could be improved in the setup or execution of this shot to make it more aesthetically pleasing, more artistic?"
Perhaps I should try more of the 'shoot from the hip' style myself, so that I can better see the art in other's work.
FOCUS:
How do you approach critiquing other's work? What draws you to comment on one shot but not another? And most importantly, how do you address the artistry of an image?
[edit to make links nicer]
[last edit 1/6/2006 10:45 PM by Kelwyn - edited 1 times]
"I worry that Jesus drinks himself to sleep when he hears me talk like this."
- Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird |
|
nd31
  
| | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 1 on 1/7/2006 8:51 AM >
| | | | First and foremost is the aesthetic response from me. I instantly know whether I like a photo or not simply by how the subject matter is presented in its immediacy. The emotional response is tied innately to this, but eliciting true emotion (especially in photojournalism of very grim events) comes secondary in terms of evaluating a photo, although it comes first in terms of my mental reaction.
After all that comes the technical quality of the photo. If it is technically flawed, but the emotion or general feel of the photo is raw and sublime, then I consider the photo without regard to its technical composition, but not as a fine arts photograph. If it doesn't give that immediate response, then the technical quality is what defines if its a good photo in terms of things such as composition, framing, focusing, etc.
The first type of critique, that is, instinctual, occurs almost instantaneously. The technical critique is more involved.
|
|
desmet
 
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| | |  | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 2 on 1/12/2006 12:39 AM >
| | | | I was almost going to disagree and say that technical critique is more important, but I've changed my mind after critiquing in some of the threads tonight. Emotional response and impact is essential. Even if a shot is technically good, it might just not speak to you or tell you anything about what the photographer was trying to convey. If photography is going to be treated as art, it needs to convey something of what the photographer was thinking and feeling when they took the shot. If that's missing, the picture is no good.
That said, technical critique is what makes us better. A lot of times we don't see what's wrong with a photo because we see it in context in our minds. When others point out technical problems, it just helps us not to make the same mistakes next time and makes us better photographers. I think critique without technical critique is no better than critique without emotional/impact critique...they are both essential.
It's so important for each artist to try and manifest their own vision regardless of what anyone says, and the bottom line is that art should be done for the ARTIST and not for the VIEWER! Always remember that when someone is critiquing your shots.
|
|
tron_2.0
Location: Ohio
Gender: Male
| | | | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 3 on 1/12/2006 12:53 AM >
| | | | Usually the way the shot is framed does it for me. Of course there is the asthetic part of photos, but I tend to lean towards a more technical approach.
[quote][i]Posted by yokes[/i]
I find your lack of coziness.... disturbing.
[/quote] |
|
yokes
 
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
I aim to misbehave
| | | | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 4 on 1/12/2006 1:15 AM >
| | | |
For me a good photo has either technical skill or it evokes an emotional response.
A great photo has both.
This is my closest example of a lomo style photo:
[last edit 1/12/2006 1:16 AM by yokes - edited 1 times]
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water and stupid men." - Richard Nickel |
|
micro
Gender: Male
Slowly I turned
| | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 5 on 1/12/2006 2:25 AM >
| | | | I think that Lomography (the company) is nothing short of a scam designed to get people to pay ridiculous amounts of money for what are essentially cheap, poorly made toy cameras. And lomography as a creative excercise, at least the way they describe it, is pretentious at best, resulting in little more than meaningless snapshots that happen to be distorted and have bright colours. *twirls finger*
I think there are certain cases where less structured, off-the-cuff style photographs work well (street photography for instance) but to encourage people to use this "don't think, just shoot" rule exclusively, really rubs me the wrong way. Millions of people do this already with their cheap digital cameras and it's not called lomography. It's called run-of-the-mill boringness. Lomographers think they're being radical, but I think it's more just retrogressive behavior than anything-- and not in that good punk rock kind of way either.
As for evaluating other people's images, it's hard for photographers to do it without looking at the technical and compositional aspects of the picture first. Is it in focus, is it properly exposed, is it nicely balanced, etc, etc, whereas someone who doesn't know/care about such things will be able to tell you whether they think a photo is good or not based purely on their emotional reaction to it.
It's hard to say what style of critique is better or more valuable. Myself, I prefer the more technical type of critique just because I feel as though there's more to learn from it. I think emotional critiques (ie: "this is great!" or "this is boring.") can only go so far, however it is nice to hear a compliment (or even an insult) now and again to know how well you're doing with people other than fellow photography nerds.
|
|
nd31
| | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 6 on 1/12/2006 3:09 AM >
| | | | Posted by micro
I think that Lomography (the company) is nothing short of a scam designed to get people to pay ridiculous amounts of money for what are essentially cheap, poorly made toy cameras. And lomography as a creative excercise, at least the way they describe it, is pretentious at best, resulting in little more than meaningless snapshots that happen to be distorted and have bright colours. *twirls finger*
I think there are certain cases where less structured, off-the-cuff style photographs work well (street photography for instance) but to encourage people to use this "don't think, just shoot" rule exclusively, really rubs me the wrong way. Millions of people do this already with their cheap digital cameras and it's not called lomography. It's called run-of-the-mill boringness. Lomographers think they're being radical, but I think it's more just retrogressive behavior than anything-- and not in that good punk rock kind of way either.
|
Fine, lomography might be perceived pretentious. Toy Camera photos should not.
And simply because someone uses a type of equipment doesn't mean they should neglect every technical aspect, that's obvious. However, the quirky nature of the photos does have a certain feel, and I like it.
As for evaluating other people's images, it's hard for photographers to do it without looking at the technical and compositional aspects of the picture first. Is it in focus, is it properly exposed, is it nicely balanced, etc, etc, whereas someone who doesn't know/care about such things will be able to tell you whether they think a photo is good or not based purely on their emotional reaction to it.
|
I disagree. I care very much about aesthetics, but my emotional response will always go before most technical issues. Generally, if the photo is poorly composed to begin with, there will not be that evocative response.
It's hard to say what style of critique is better or more valuable. Myself, I prefer the more technical type of critique just because I feel as though there's more to learn from it. I think emotional critiques (ie: "this is great!" or "this is boring.") can only go so far, however it is nice to hear a compliment (or even an insult) now and again to know how well you're doing with people other than fellow photography nerds.
|
I should hope photographers are concerned with more than technical composition. I've spent so much time looking at photos in magazines, on the internet, etc. that I've seen plenty of "technically perfect" photos that are really just a bore. Subject matter is interpretive--there is no checklist to define if something is interesting. That is where emotional response is at its best...
[last edit 1/12/2006 3:13 AM by nd31 - edited 1 times]
|
|
Servo
| | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 7 on 1/12/2006 3:27 AM >
| | | | Posted by micro
Millions of people do this already with their cheap digital cameras and it's not called lomography. |
When I think lomography I think well-composed photographs that happen to be made with extremely cheap cameras to give them a certain look. Maybe you're thinking of something else.
| I think emotional critiques (ie: "this is great!" or "this is boring.") can only go so far, |
Totally not what I meant by emotional critique. I mean, critiquing the "feeling" an image gives you -- e.g. does it seem to convey something deeper than just "here is a shitty old building". Maybe it implies lonelines, or hope, or what-have-you.
To clarify, I don't think there is absolutely zero worth in technical critiques. I just find them to be generally secondary to critiques of the actual subject and what the photographer was trying to say with the photo.
|
|
micro
Gender: Male
Slowly I turned
| | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 8 on 1/12/2006 4:18 AM >
| | | | Posted by ndillon31
Fine, lomography might be perceived pretentious. Toy Camera photos should not. |
The cameras aren't but sometimes the people who use them are. 
| And simply because someone uses a type of equipment doesn't mean they should neglect every technical aspect, that's obvious. However, the quirky nature of the photos does have a certain feel, and I like it. |
I like the holga look but the images that come out of Lomo (tm) cameras just seem tacky to me. The worst is when people use the fish-eye Lomo and then x-process it to all hell. It's like having to sit next to a hot girl with awful tattoos while listening to shitty music.
| I disagree. I care very much about aesthetics, but my emotional response will always go before most technical issues. Generally, if the photo is poorly composed to begin with, there will not be that evocative response. |
So basically what you're saying is that it's a yin and yang sort of thing.
| I should hope photographers are concerned with more than technical composition. |
I didn't say they weren't, only that the technical stuff is what they might look at first when asked to review someone else's work. If a picture is poorly composed and exposed then that's going to stick out to me more than it might to Joe Blow who might just think "hey, that's a nice picture of a dog." I don't recall saying it was an either/or thing, only that photographers have a tendency to approach critiques from a more technical angle.
| I've spent so much time looking at photos in magazines, on the internet, etc. that I've seen plenty of "technically perfect" photos that are really just a bore. |
Obviously. I'm not talking about "technical perfection" though. I think that for a photo to even be considered average, it should have some level of technical adequacy to it, and not look as though it was taken by someone who just picked up a camera. If it doesn't then that's what I'm going to notice first. It doesn't make me a photographic facist who insists that all images look as flawless as stock photography.
Subject matter is interpretive--there is no checklist to define if something is interesting. That is where emotional response is at its best...
|
Of course. I really don't see what this has to do with what I wrote earlier. Don't tell me you're still upset about the lomography remarks..
|
|
nd31
| | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 9 on 1/12/2006 4:49 AM >
| | | | Posted by micro
Of course. I really don't see what this has to do with what I wrote earlier. Don't tell me you're still upset about the lomography remarks..
|
Hah. All I own a Holga which I bought from Korea, and I hardly would be insulted by your opinion of lomography. I agree in many respects. It can be very good if the emphasis isn't "OMG! I used a coloursplash flash and expired slide film! It's a picture of a rabbit!", but that is not always the case.
I was not insulted at all. I just find your stance on the critiques interesting. I am by no means fully educated about photography. I taught myself pretty much all I know, and have only been pursuing the hobby for 2 years. Nonetheless, I don't necessarily think a professional or "photo-tech" nerd has any better sense of the actual aesthetic quality of the photo in question that an individual with an astute eye. Certainly there will be a greater appreciation of the specific technical aspects of the photo, but too often that is all.
|
|
micro
Gender: Male
Slowly I turned
| | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 10 on 1/12/2006 4:51 AM >
| | | | Posted by Servo
When I think lomography I think well-composed photographs that happen to be made with extremely cheap cameras to give them a certain look. Maybe you're thinking of something else. |
No, I know exactly what I'm thinking of because I've seen hundreds of poorly composed photos on the official lomography site that run contrary to what you just said. Have a look: http://lomography.com/ppp/
And then there's this golden rule:
Kind of hard to compose a shot if you're not even looking through the viewfinder, isn't it?
There is some good stuff out there, but too often people rely too much on the lomo-effect thinking that it's enough to make the picture interesing.
| Totally not what I meant by emotional critique. I mean, critiquing the "feeling" an image gives you -- e.g. does it seem to convey something deeper than just "here is a shitty old building". Maybe it implies lonelines, or hope, or what-have-you. |
Ugh. That's not a critique, that's something you say to impress your girlfriend at an art gallery. A critique is when you leave the emotional stuff at the door, get down to brass tacks and tell someone specifically why something works or why it doesn't work at all. Anything else is just art college wank as far as I'm concerned.
To clarify, I don't think there is absolutely zero worth in technical critiques. I just find them to be generally secondary to critiques of the actual subject and what the photographer was trying to say with the photo.
|
Critiquing is all about judgement and offering constructive criticism. I think what you're talking about is more of an interpretational thing.
|
|
nd31
| | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 11 on 1/12/2006 10:58 PM >
| | | | Posted by micro
Ugh. That's not a critique, that's something you say to impress your girlfriend at an art gallery. A critique is when you leave the emotional stuff at the door, get down to brass tacks and tell someone specifically why something works or why it doesn't work at all. Anything else is just art college wank as far as I'm concerned.
|
You really missed out on Criticism 101. A technical critique is one thing, and it is certainly valid, but an actual analysis of subject matter, etc. is entirely different and very important.
By your standards a literary critique should only look at the mechanics of literature, not the actual historical or intellectual significance, for example.
And for something working or not working, that, again, is more based on the intent of the photographer, the subject matter, the viewer's understanding, etc. Something doesn't work solely by technical standards, otherwise we'd all have well composed commercial photos of Pepsi cans or Gilette razors on our walls.
[last edit 1/12/2006 11:00 PM by nd31 - edited 2 times]
|
|
Celluloid
Location: Chicago Northside
Gender: Female
| |  | | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 12 on 1/15/2006 3:11 AM >
| | | | I think it's interesting you guys bring up "Lomography". I have been shooting with a Holga since back when you still had to get them from Hong Kong. My dad got my first one because he didn't trust me with his Diana.
I agree that the "official" Lomography site is full of crap photos. Whereas a "lomographic" camera (I almost hate that term, as the Lomography company smacks of pretension for me) is fully capable of producing interesting images - and in the case of most, they have the controls for technically sound images - most wannabe photographers use the "lomo rules" as an excuse for their poor art.
In the case of the Holga (which I have not yet bought one from Lomography's insanely priced shop... I still usually get them from Hong Kong), the camera's light leaks and focus problems are it's trademark. You can still get a rather sound image from the camera. In fact, they are easily modifiable to lessen the leaks. I liken it to an ugly child. Everyone else may cringe, but the mother always shows love. Lomography simply isn't for everyone.
I'm sad to see that the Lomo LCA has been adopted by these "shoot from the hip" scenesters. The LCA is a precision tool that gives the user a very sharp focus, many exposure choices, and lends itself well to the high saturation and crisp contrast that usually makes a good negative. Unfortunately, all most people see out of it are snapshots. What a waste of 200 bucks!
Not content to fall in to the hype of Lomography, I've instead turned my attention to vintage cameras - both 35mm and 120. In Gary tomorrow, I'll be busting out the Argus A that I got for Christmas. Still don't have a Diana - but that will change soon, I hope.
|
|
micro
Gender: Male
Slowly I turned
| | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 13 on 1/15/2006 3:50 AM >
| | | | Posted by ndillon31
You really missed out on Criticism 101. A technical critique is one thing, and it is certainly valid, but an actual analysis of subject matter, etc. is entirely different and very important.
|
I understand this. I was referring more to Servo's "but how does it make you feel?" approach to criticism. I never said that a critique has to be entirely technical..
|
|
micro
Gender: Male
Slowly I turned
| | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 14 on 1/15/2006 4:13 AM >
| | | | Posted by Celluloid
Not content to fall in to the hype of Lomography, I've instead turned my attention to vintage cameras - both 35mm and 120. In Gary tomorrow, I'll be busting out the Argus A that I got for Christmas. Still don't have a Diana - but that will change soon, I hope.
|
See, the problem I have with things like holgas or other toy cameras is that people tend to rely too much on the effect of the camera in order to make the picture to look interesting. To use the one you posted as an example, if I made it sharper, took away the vignetting, the grain and the fuzzy rebate, I'd probably be left with a fairly run of the mill photograph. Sorry, but if the foundation subject matter/composition isn't very interesting then it doesn't matter what lens, filter, film, developing effect you throw on top of it, I'm still going to be bored. I understand the appeal of the aesthetic that comes with these cameras. I just wish people would take better pictures with them. :/
|
|
Celluloid
Location: Chicago Northside
Gender: Female
| | | | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 15 on 1/15/2006 5:57 AM >
| | | | | Posted by micro To use the one you posted as an example, if I made it sharper, took away the vignetting, the grain and the fuzzy rebate, I'd probably be left with a fairly run of the mill photograph. |
Actually, with the photo I attached, if you made it sharper, took away the vignetting, the grain and the fuzzy rebate, you'd be left with a fairly crappy as hell photograph.
It was pretty much just added to show the lil things that make that particular Holga what it is. No other Holga camera on this planet will be how it is. That's the lure for me.
Is it art? Hell if I know. I just know I like it. It's my ugly child.
|
|
nd31
| | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 16 on 1/15/2006 6:41 PM >
| | | | Posted by micro
To use the one you posted as an example, if I made it sharper, took away the vignetting, the grain and the fuzzy rebate, I'd probably be left with a fairly run of the mill photograph.
|
Hence why photography is about distortion. It cannot solely subject matter, otherwise photography becomes less than art.
|
|
desmet
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| | | | Re: On critiquing the artistry of photos
<Reply # 17 on 1/16/2006 6:18 AM >
| | | | Posted by micro
See, the problem I have with things like holgas or other toy cameras is that people tend to rely too much on the effect of the camera in order to make the picture to look interesting.
|
I agree. I think you can take good and bad photographs with all types of cameras and a good photograph is a good photograph regardless of the quality of the picture. The camera can add to (or subtract from) what an image conveys, but a good photographer is always going to be able to do more with a given piece of a equipment than someone who doesn't put enough into it. I think you can certainly progress with any piece of equipment, but if you're just letting the effect of the camera be everything your photos are about then you're not really going to go anywhere with it.
|
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 125 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 738446780 pages have been generated.
|
|
