Why learn to Critique?
Reason #1: Learn to critic as a mind/vision-expanding exercise. Art criticism can be a valuable teaching aid in our own photographic evolution. In learning to “see” the design elements employed by accomplished photographers – and being able to describe them in coherent terms – can speed the development of our own photographic vision.

Have you ever kept a journal? Used a day planner? Explained something to a coworker? If so, you’ve likely experienced clarification of thought. Committing your thoughts to some organized means of conveyance can provide insight and clarity. Same is true with critique. In analyzing what works for others (and what doesn’t), you’ll soon expand your own arsenal of technique.

Reason #2: I like this quote. It’s from North Carolina State University’s photojournalism website: “Photographers who do not have every assignment critiqued (a) are not completing the assignment; and (b) will not improve. It is the job of the photographer to sit down with someone trained to critique photos after every assignment.”

Accepting critique from others can be awkward, unless you understand the concept. I’ve found that, once I came to understand and appreciate the tenets of critique, I actively sought objective critiques from respected photographers. Before that, it was awkward and I occasionally got hurt feelings – even though no malice had been intended.

To be critiqued, I suggest you join a camera club or join up with one of the many online photo-communities. My personal favorite, due to the helpful critiques frequently offered there, is usefilm.com. At UseFilm, I’ve found many who offer legitimate critiques. It’s always nice to get the quick blurb, “Great Shot!” but that’s like sugar – the high quickly wears off and you’re left with nothing substantial. There is a committed band of members at UseFilm who take critiquing seriously. Check them out . . .

As an aside, I’m working on an essay that will feature the work of one of my favorite shooters from the UseFilm family. It’s a spectacular image and I think you’ll want to see it. Check back to catch it!

What, exactly, is Critique?
To critique is not to criticize (IMO: criticize = fault finding, harsh judgment, and making it personal). I believe that art criticism should be a positive experience, beneficial to both the artist and the individual offering critique.

Wikipedia, that invaluable online encyclopedia, describes art criticism as “the written discussion or evaluation of visual art” from an “informed interpretation” perspective. They continue: “Art critics usually criticize art in the context of aesthetics or the theory of beauty. One of criticism’s goals is the pursuit of a rational basis for art appreciation.”

So, simply stated, to critique IS NOT to put somebody down – it’s not a personal attack. To critique is to offer your interpretation of that artist’s work and to, perhaps, offer thoughts on an alternative technique or approach that may, from your point of view, strengthen the image. If both parties understand the process, it’s win-win!

I’m sure you’ll recognize the subjective nature of critique. Two of us may look at the same photograph, yet be impacted differently. It’s kind of a stimulus and response thing. My response is governed by the interpretive filters I’ve grown over the years (communication theory dribble for my Communications Major buddies!). So, there really is no right or wrong opinion. That’s a pretty big safety net. Jump in!

How to Critique?
I exercise a three-pronged approach to critique: I consider the emotional draw, artistic design, and technical aspects. What follows is my own, personal framework. As you become more adept at “reading” photography, you’ll likely develop your own approach. Meanwhile, if you find it useful, please use mine.

First, I consider what initially sparked my interest in the image? I call this the First Look Factor, or the emotional draw. What does the image make me feel or think? I like to deal with this topic first because I’m a very visual processor. To me, this is the bottom line. I’m a numbers’ guy by training, so I find it natural to immediately drop to the bottom line: what does this image do for me?

I articulate my attraction. I refuse to compromise by simply accepting that I either like or dislike it. I compel myself to discuss, why. I seldom share the entirety of my thinking with the artist, but I make sure I’m conversant on the “emotional draw” aspect before attempting to write a critique. This becomes the foundation for my critique.

I make notes on a scratch pad as I consider the emotional draw question.

Second, how did the artist treat the subject from a compositional design standpoint? After I’ve quantified the emotional draw, I’m better able to objectively search the image for the artistic design elements employed.

Here, I consider the subject. Is it simplified or complex? What contextual clues can I spot to define the subject’s relationship to place? I next look for compositional components: both obvious and subtle. How did the artist use light, shadow, space, perspective, color, texture, lines, and pattern to engage the viewer and enhance the subject? I make notes.

I name the compositional elements I think were handled well. I look for things that could have been done differently that may possibly improve the image (assuming the opportunity existed – my subjective opinion). I write these things on my scratch pad.

And, finally, I seek to interpret the technical aspects of the image: how the photographer pulled it all together – both in camera and in post-processing. I look at focus. Are the right things in sharp relief? What about depth of field? Do I find sharp things in the foreground or background that would be better rendered out of focus?

I look at the impact of lighting. Does it exhibit either masterful manipulation (in shooting portraits and such) or the patience of Job (landscapes)? In either case, it exhibits knowledge and a calculated discipline. I make another note.

After I’ve completed my note-taking review, I then seek to pull it all together – typically in my word processor. Once satisfied with how I’ve presented my thoughts (paying particular attention to my “tone”), I’ll copy it into the critique window (when I’m critiquing online). However, if I’ll soon be face-to-face with the artist, I’ll share it with them verbally.

In summary, my three-pronged critique style:
- Describe the emotional draw (First Look Factor)
- Consider the compositional elements
- Discuss the technical aspects

Your Turn . . .
Bottom line? Don’t you dare think you can’t critique! You do have eyes, right? Can you tell when you’re drawn to an image? Can you say why? There you go. You’ve just written your first critique!

What I’ve outlined here are not cast-in-stone rules. They’re only guidelines. This approach works for me. You may find another approach better suits your style. That’s fine. The important thing is to look at a lot of high-quality images and learn from them.

Even if you know nothing about composition or the technical aspects of photography, you DO know when you like an image. So, let that be your critique. That’s why I always start with the emotional draw. It’s starting with the obvious. It’s easy.

Many times, when I critique, I may not share anything but the emotional draw. But I’m always specific. If you’re not specific, your comments are not helpful to the artist or to you.

Always be specific. This compels you to think it through before you write about it.

I’ve found it helpful to be organized in my approach. That’s why I’ve adopted the three-pronged approach I’ve outlined here. I find my commitment to this process better educates me . . .

Open to criticism ;o)
-Mike.