Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/12/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Thinking about the recent thread(s) on photo comments and critiques: > > For me, > While comments such as: "?great, ?like it, ?number 4 is the best one, > ?doesn't do anything for me, ?WOW! ?looks like you missed the focus ? > etc." > do provide a certain amount of motivation and encouragement (or > sometimes discouragement), > they don't really qualify as "very useful critiques." > > They simply express rather quick first impressions; > which I do value; > because that may be all the time and consideration our photographs > receive from most viewers. > > A detailed analysis (critique) of any given photograph (or body of > photographs) would need to consider and discuss: > > 1) The genre > a) commercial > 1 - portrait > 2 - event > 3 - advertising > b) news > c) editorial / documentary > d) fine art > e) casual / family > f) others > > 2) The conceptual context > a) what's the point? > b) what do you wish to communicate? > > 3) The aesthetics > a) composition > b) design elements > c) the moment > d) the light > e) feelings > > 4) The technicalities > a) exposure > b) focus > c) depth of field (or lack there-of) > d) color and/or tonality > e) noise / grain > f) etc. > > 5) How do the above three work (or not) together? > > 6) The historical context > a) place in history > b) place in art (or media) > c) from the traditional > d) to the cutting edge > > It may be helpful, if we want more than a cursory first impression > comment, > to include information as to the intention and purpose for > photographing and posting the photograph, > along with a clear request for advice regarding one or more of the > above. > Some already do this - as in Lawrence's "IMG: Maggie at the helm - > opinions wanted." > > That of course is much different than what most of us tend to do here; > which amounts to simply sharing photographs (and sometimes stories) of > where we've been, what we've done, who we've seen, what we tend to > look at, gear demonstrations, etc.; > along with the occasional sharing of "actual client and/or published > work." > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george at imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > Perhaps the idea being that if our level of criticism is higher than the level of work presented to it will be higher. Will rise to the occasion. Perhaps the categories would help but I don't know. I love categories. Hate to be put in them. Mark William Rabiner