# How to critique a photograph



## Sim (Sep 27, 2008)

skieur said:


> You cannot imagine how negative our attitude is toward newbies with arrogant philosophies about the nature of photography and photographic art based on NO study, and NO experience... Newbies who think that there are no criteria or "rules" for judging the quality of photographic work and that their views are just as valid as someone with several years of study and experience.



I came across this post in the "Are photographers snobs" thread (sorry to bring it up again) and the opinion Skieur voices in it is actually the reason that I've avoided posting much cc in the past.  I kind of got the feeling that many people share this opinion and figured there wasn't any point in me giving me two cents on pictures.

Lately, though, I've decided that I should make more of an effort to give constructive criticism because maybe by giving it I'll start seeing more of where my criticism falls short and I think I can learn a lot that way. Even if reading my comments will make some people roll their eyes   But I thought I might as well ask directly too:  what "rules" do you use?  There's the obvious stuff such as proper framing etc. (I've been reading books too!), but what's everyone looking for?


----------



## Overread (Sep 27, 2008)

1) Always speak/type in a polite manner - I try to avoid being very direct and quick since online this can sometimes appear to be rude when its just a manner of speaking

2) Look for the good as well as the bad - it does not matter what level you are or how much you do or do not know, but what does matter is looking for both sides of the critique - those areas where the shot had worked and those where the shot has not

3) If you suggest a change explain the how as well - even if you think the OP knows how explain it anyway - this is important as sometimes there is more than one way to an effect, but also this is a forum - open to all - and whilst the OP might know what you mean others might not and they can benefit greatly from a description of methodology

3b) if you don't know the how then say so - its polite and it means you don't look like a snob hiding info

4) Remember that there is no such thing as a "snapshot" -that is a shot taken without thought. What might appear snatshotty could infact be a well thought out and planned shot - that went wrong or was planned badly. Treat each shot as well planned (unless the OP tells you in the thread of course) and respond likewise

That is mostly the way I operate when commenting and I have not been doing this for a year yet (very soon will be a year though - my how time flies!). Experience is not a factor in like or dislike = though it is a clear factor in explaining the how of what can improve as well as understanding limitations on kit and shooting conditions


----------



## Alpha (Sep 27, 2008)

Oh god, not this **** again.


----------



## Overread (Sep 27, 2008)

just take deep breaths Alpha - and unsubscribe the thread


----------



## Sim (Sep 27, 2008)

Thanks Overread!  That's really helpful.  

Sorry to annoy you Alpha.  I did a search before I posted the thread but unfortunately critique is a pretty popular word on this forum so I didn't come up with anything.  So I posted the question anyway with the hopes that other people starting out would find it helpful too.


----------



## Zada (Sep 27, 2008)

Very helpful Overread  

Sim - just for the record, you have excellent cc


----------



## Sim (Sep 27, 2008)

Thanks, Zada!


----------



## Joves (Sep 27, 2008)

Hawaii Five-O said:


> Well your CC can't really fall short since it is your opinion on how you see the photo. There isn't really a right way and wrong way to take a photo. Sometimes people get too caught up in the technicalities of photography


 I agree. Much like the way people say something is soft or, swing around the whole IQ BS. Sometimes you try to shoot a soft photo or one that is harsh.


----------



## Sabin (Sep 27, 2008)

There's a writing forum I'm at frequently, and they have a unique position that one of the best ways to improve your writing is to be able to critique it, so they very heavily stress giving good critiques, to the point that a new member is required to give at leas three critiques of someone else's works before putting up their own for review.  When they don't follow that rule one of the admin's puts up a form post saying that the thread is locked until they meet the requirement.  It's very effective at weeding out the people who want to get better and the people who just want to have others praise their work.  Also, the reviews are almost always helpful.  They are more than just "I really like that," because of the heavy stress on being specific about what you thought worked and didn't work.  This is one of the few forums I've found that actually helped me get better at something.  

This is one of the stickied posts that I think works very well no matter what you are critiquing.  Just replace poetry with photograph. 

To help you offer constructive comments/criticism to authors, here are some things you may like to consider in the preparations towards your respones.

~*OFFER PRAISE*
Well-written poems should receive acknowledgment.
Successful poetry be noted as such.
Remember that these are drafts, no one expects you to post finished work.
Also complimenting the author on images, passages and word usage that are meaningful or striking to you is another thing that you may wish to do.

~*COMMENT ON CLARITY*
In order to evoke emotion in the reader, the poem's images must be clear. Bring to the attention of the author points you find unclear, lines, words and images. Spellling, grammatr and punctuation are crucial to the poems clarity; if you spot any errors, point them out, but avoid the nit-pick.

~*LOCATE THE SUBJECT*
What is the poem really talking about? Is it implied or stated? State what you feel is taking place in the poem. If the subject of the poem is unclear or appears to be obscure, then your comments on the work may not benefit the author.

~*LOOK FOR THE HEART OF THE POEM*
Address the issue of the occassion for the poem. Why was the poem written? The reason that the author wrote the poem must be clear and visible somewhere in the poem for the reader to determine whether the author has effectively treated the subject.

~*OFFER SUGGESTION FOR REVISION*
The more specific you are inyour comments about lines, images, stanzas, the greater chance the author will find your ideas helpful with revision. Many times, fewer lines are better--which lines could be cut from the poem without changing its intent or integrity? Which ideas or images need expansion?
Sometimes the addition of just a word or two can help to clarify the authors intent.
To help you offer constructive comments/criticism to authors, here are some things you may like to consider in the preparations towards your respones.


----------



## Yemme (Sep 28, 2008)

Just in case this thread goes haywire I'm ready.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Sep 28, 2008)

Don't know whether this is of use, but when I submitted my panel of photographs for the OU course I did last year, they were looking for the following:

*Part 1 (i) Visual Awareness - unique comments on panel and overall grade achieved (e.g. emerging strengths, weaknesses, visual creativity, variety in use of camera/image editing, overall impact)*

*Part 1 (ii) Technical Quality - unique comments on panel and overall grade achieved (e.g. emerging strengths, weaknesses, technical creativity)*

Does that help?


----------



## Helen B (Sep 28, 2008)

Sabin said:


> There's a writing forum I'm at frequently, and they have a unique position that one of the best ways to improve your writing is to be able to critique it...



As far as I know, that idea is far from unique: I think that it is quite common.

Here's a suggested framework for critiques. I think of it as being Henry James' method.

_What is the perceived intent? (This needs to be answered before proceeding)

Has the intent been realised?

Was it worth it?_ 

This gets the technical stuff into the background and reduces the influence of the reviewers' personal preferences. It does, however, assume intentionalism*. This may or may not be a valid assumption. I think that it is preferable to starting by assuming that you already know the photographer's intent. That's my main criticism with most of the critiques I read on the web, and why I think that the web can often be stultifying and homogenising.

Best,
Helen

*_"the notion that authorial intention can provide a guide to interpretation, a criterion of textual meaning, or a standard for the validation of criticism."_


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 28, 2008)

^^^  What she said!  ^^^


----------



## manaheim (Sep 28, 2008)

^^^ yeah, some great suggestions by everyone here.

Interestingly, I originally joined up here to learn about photography.  I figured that first I would get some good critique to learn from others as to how to take great shots.  I absolutely have, and many of the folks who have responded to this thread are a _big _part of that... Alpha included. 

Further, I have always felt that being able to _do_ something means you have an understanding of it, but that being able to _teach_ something may well mean that you have mastery of it.  I try to be able to _teach_ anything that I want to _do_, in photography or anything else for that matter.  I therefore am _deeply_ interesting in providing critique because it benefits the reader _and_ it benefits me.

As an intriguing side-effect, I think the forum has taught me better how to quickly compose semi-intelligent writings... organizing my thoughts, writing them down in a coherrent manner, and even keeping them (usually) polite and constructive.  I can't say I'm perfect at this, but I've learned a lot about it in a very short period of time.  Bonus! 

The whole thread about snobs, and the occasional post about how so many people here are such jerks yadda yadda are misaligned in my opinion.  Yeah, there are a couple grouches in every crowd and everyone has an off day or a hotbutton here and there, but I spend an _inordinate (sp?)_ amount of time on these forums and I can say with conviction that this is an amazingly positive and helpful community.

The one piece of advice I can give anyone, is that you _do_ have to have at least a tiny bit of a tough skin.  It's easy to get wrapped up emotionally in what you do in photography, and unfortunately if you cannot seperate yourself a bit, _any_ critique is reasonably likely to piss you off.  Being prickly about critique is going to get you absolutely _nowhere_.  You gotta listen and learn.

So that's my $.12.


----------



## Sim (Sep 28, 2008)

Thanks for your responses and ideas everyone... There's a lot of interesting perspectives in here and I think I have a few new approaches to try out later today


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 28, 2008)

_Anyone_ can give a crit because it is nothing more than a personal opinion.
This means that _any_ crit is a valid crit.
But just because something is valid it does not mean that it is of value.
Opinions are often rooted in ignorance or misunderstanding thus an opinion based on inaccurate knowledge is not of much value.
For example: a person knows nothing of Physics. Instead they believe in magic pixies. You ask them why the sky is blue and they tell you that it is because the magic pixies paint it that colour.
This does not help you with your question but it does tell you that the person you have asked is probably certifiable.
The same holds true for photographic criticism.
If you ask for an opinion you may get lots but much of it may be of no use as the person giving it may know less about Photography than you do. Therefore people asking for criticism need to apply their own critical faculties to the answers they get.
If a response helps you with a problem then that response is of value.
If a response does not help you with a problem then that response has no value.
When you are starting out in Photography you will find that almost all crits have at least some value to you.
As you improve and progress then you will find that fewer and fewer people can help you. But by that time you have generally developed the ability to know who those people are.


Note: In this wonderful digital age one should try to avoid making comments on exposure and contrast.
You view the image on your monitor and they view it on theirs.
It may look fine on one but not the other.
This is because people rarely calibrate their computer monitors and very rarely have high quality monitors.
When you comment on what you see in terms of 'exposure' and 'contrast' you are often only commenting on the quality of reproduction on your monitor.
And even when you do calibrate your monitor and it is of good quality there are other factors which affect what you see.
For example: I use Macintosh. Their monitors use a higher Gamma setting that the average PC. Therefore images I adjust using my set up will tend to look too dark with poor contrast on a PC.
And this is quite apart from all the compression and expansion (often with a degree of information loss) that digital images are subject to when passed around the Interweb.


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 28, 2008)

Helen B said:


> Here's a suggested framework for critiques. I think of it as being Henry James' method.
> 
> _What is the perceived intent? (This needs to be answered before proceeding)
> 
> ...



I agree.  Posting a photo with little or no explanation, and having people post what they think is not a critique.  I can tell people if I like their photo or not, and what I'd do (my taste) based on my assumptions (which are probably mostly wrong).  To give a critique I need to understand what the artist was trying to achieve.  Even if it's as simple as "I was trying to take a pretty picture", although the more vague the intent, or the less I understand it, the more harsh my critique is likely to be.  If all I've got to judge it on is how it compares to my taste then basically I'm telling you how I would have done it.  I don't think that's a critique.

I'll take Skieur's quote in the OP a step further.  Even people completely uninterested in photography are capable of looking at a photograph, assessing whether they like it or not, whether it would be popular with the masses, and if it moves them enough they can explain in detail why they like it without ever once referring to f/stop or process.  Almost all human beings are well trained in seeing.  They may not have the technical vocabulary, but they've been looking at photographs and the world all their lives.  I don't ask photographers for critiques except for a few close friends.  I know what the camera club dogma is.  I want to hear what painters, sculptors, chefs, gardeners, knitters, dancers, and birdwatchers think.

Another issue is the relative anonymity of those giving the critique.  Would you stand on a street corner asking passers by what they thought of your photos?  Would that be of much use?  You need to know or know about the people giving the critique to judge it's value.


----------



## Alpha (Sep 28, 2008)

I believe we put too much faith in formal critiques for their formality, because we think it gives them creedence. That is, we tend to think that provided a critique follows these formal guidelines that it is good, or appropriate, or "valid," none of which are necessarily true.


----------



## abraxas (Sep 28, 2008)

Sim said:


> ...
> 
> Lately, though, I've decided that I should make more of an effort to give constructive criticism because maybe by giving it I'll start seeing more of where my criticism falls short and I think I can learn a lot that way. Even if reading my comments will make some people roll their eyes   But I thought I might as well ask directly too:  what "rules" do you use?  There's the obvious stuff such as proper framing etc. (I've been reading books too!), but what's everyone looking for?



I think that if you do not assume that everyone here is looking for a 'critique', and offer one when it is requested with the post, then pretty much anything goes.  

I also think that if you offer a criticism, then have somewhat of a tough skin, and be prepared to take criticism of your opinion.


----------



## rubbertree (Sep 28, 2008)

Sim said:


> Lately, though, I've decided that I should make more of an effort to give constructive criticism because maybe by giving it I'll start seeing more of where my criticism falls short and I think I can learn a lot that way.



Remember thought that the person that posted the picture is looking to learn from the critique. If the critique you give has incorrect information in it, sure, YOU might learn from it (that is _if_ others chime in to tell you where you went wrong with your critique) but that does not help the poster out at all. I think an important point here is that the person who posted the picture needs experienced information, not a newbie taking a shot at it. You can always look at the pictures, critique it in your head and follow the post to see if what you thought is the same thing as what others think. You will still learn that way.

I'm not picking on you per say, but one thing that irks me is when someone posts a picture for critique and time and time again their are replies from someone that says, "I think XYZ about this picture but then again, what do I know, I'm just a noob." I think that is unfair to the poster who is trying to learn. If you are going to give a critique, then know what you are talking about.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 28, 2008)

^^^ yeah, but whose to say if they're right or wrong?  Technical issues aside, there isn't a right or wrong in photography or any art form _really_.


----------



## rubbertree (Sep 28, 2008)

absolutely true. My point was more that it's not fair of a noob to take someone else's opportunity and use it as their own opportunity.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 29, 2008)

Sim said:


> I came across this post in the "Are photographers snobs" thread (sorry to bring it up again) and the opinion Skieur voices in it is actually the reason that I've avoided posting much cc in the past.



Probably a wrong conclusion.  There _seem_ to be  three basic kinds of image posts on this site. One is in search of honest critique although how they handle it varies. Two is the sign-my-year-book style where they just seem to want others to see the photos - it's fun to share stuff (especially in-line images on a site like this) and that's mostly what they seem to be after. And three is the informative documenting image - these seem not to be about the photograph but rather the subject for whatever reasons. 

All of these (and whatever other's I didn't think of) seem to be perfectly acceptable to the vast majority here. Where conflict comes in is where the communication isn't clear. The user wants #1 but gets #2, becomes bored and leaves. The User wants #2 but gets #1 and becomes offended. I guess it's wise to state with the photo what we're looking for and why we posted the image.




> I kind of got the feeling that many people share this opinion and figured there wasn't any point in me giving me two cents on pictures.



As a critic? Nah, most of us who have sat there with a stack of prints or scrolled through 20 or 30 images in a thread know very well that to critique an image is a totally different talent than being able to take good photographs. The person who can take good photographs _MAY_ be additionally capable of offering possible solutions - but that again is separate  from the critique and both are useful to the person in category #1.



> Lately, though, I've decided that I should make more of an effort to give constructive criticism because maybe by giving it I'll start seeing more of where my criticism falls short and I think I can learn a lot that way. Even if reading my comments will make some people roll their eyes



Now you're thinking right. (IMO) 



> But I thought I might as well ask directly too:  what "rules" do you use?  There's the obvious stuff such as proper framing etc. (I've been reading books too!), but what's everyone looking for?



I think my rules are unique. I wait for a thread to sink way down on the list or over to page two or three, while maintaining zero replies. I'll then "critique" the image effectively bumping the thread at the same time. The critique I offer is based on where I fit the intent into my 1, 2, or 3 above. 

If it's #1 I try to consider their experience level and then type sentences I would feel comfortable saying out loud if they were sitting next to me. *Only* the photographer can determine if it's valid or not after the crit is given but if they are smart they will realize that at least one person sees it in the stated way.

The idea that a person often learns the most from the harshest crits is true but I don't like to do that very often unless it's an individual I think isn't learning anything, honestly wants to, but has an ego that is getting in the way. I probably don't pay close enough attention to notice that combination very often so it works out pretty good.


----------



## skieur (Sep 29, 2008)

Well, since it is my quote at the beginning, I should answer the question. I should emphasize that this is not my personal opinion. This is how it is done in the competition circuit of judging high level enthusiast and professional competitions.  Whether you like it or not, this is how it is.

Formal, professional critique is divided into 2 sections:with detailed comments on  technique and composition.

Technique includes all the technical aspects of the shot and the use of ISO, aperture, shutterspeed, lenses, filters, depth of field, tripod, flash, colour temperature, reflectors, etc.  to get a shot with visual impact.

Composition involves all the artistic aspects of framing: rule of thirds, use of line, curves,  shape, colour, lighting, shadows,  paths, posing, etc.

Some caveats should be mentioned.  The photo must stand on its own as a success or failure.  It does not matter what the photographer was trying to do. From the strictly viewer point of view the question is: Did he\she succeed?.

Personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant.  Does the photo have the level of technique, composition, and visual impact and interest to make it an outstanding, very good, good, or competent photo?

Lastly, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PLAIN, CLEAR, LANGUAGE is used.  Diplomacy and tact is NOT USED NOR SHOULD IT BE EXPECTED in professional and top level critique.

Again, whether you agree or disagree is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. That is what CRITIQUE is all about.

skieur


----------



## reg (Sep 29, 2008)

And these "sign my yearbook" as Bi calls it photos, belong in Just for Fun IMO. Not even the "Beginners" forum, because I certainly don't look at your crappy snapshots all day for my health.



skieur said:


> Diplomacy and tact is NOT USED NOR SHOULD IT BE EXPECTED in professional and top level critique.
> 
> Again, whether you agree or disagree is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. That is what CRITIQUE is all about.


----------



## skieur (Sep 29, 2008)

reg said:


> And these "sign my yearbook" as Bi calls it photos, belong in Just for Fun IMO. Not even the "Beginners" forum, because I certainly don't look at your crappy snapshots all day for my health.


 
How about a coherent, understandable response?

skieur


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 29, 2008)

Kids, what cha gonna do.


----------



## JC1220 (Sep 29, 2008)

Anyone else humming the theme to Weeds?


----------



## manaheim (Sep 29, 2008)

skieur said:


> Well, since it is my quote at the beginning, I should answer the question. I should emphasize that this is not my personal opinion. This is how it is done in the competition circuit of judging high level enthusiast and professional competitions. Whether you like it or not, this is how it is.
> 
> Formal, professional critique is divided into 2 sections:with detailed comments on technique and composition.
> 
> ...


 
I love this.  I wish we could see more of it here.  Direct and to the point.  Some folks get really hurt by it though.  C'est la vie.


----------



## Fox Paw (Sep 29, 2008)

"Personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant. Does the photo have the level of technique, composition, and visual impact and interest to make it an outstanding, very good, good, or competent photo?"

No offense, but that is the most misguided way of approaching a creative act that I can imagine, and I couldn't care less what the verdict of those who approach it that way might be.  If that's the approach, you could program a computer to analyze Picasso, Keats or Bach.  Personal likes and dislikes--i.e., subjective responses to an act of creativity--are what it's all about.  We're humans, not machines.  I've seen photos posted here that are technically deficient but creative and inspired.  They beat the bejesus out of some perfect but safe and boring photos.

While I'm dissenting, I'll go back to another post: I don't think it matters what the creator intended when you perceive a creative act.  It has to stand on its own feet and if it requires an explanation, or even a title, it's lacking something.

Disclaimer: as strongly as I feel about these things, my opinions are only that.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 29, 2008)

^^^  I wouldn't dismiss it entirely.

Think about it, there are certainly a lot of general guidelines that do seem to help make images work better.  Rule of thirds, take up the frame with the subject, keep the horizon straight, look for interesting angles, repetition, colors, yadda yadda.

There's no doubt that these things don't always work, nor are they always necessary, but they frequently do have a lot of impact.

I dunno... it's just interesting.  I'd like to see how a group following rules like this would critique a big group of photos and see what the results are like.


----------



## Helen B (Sep 30, 2008)

skieur said:


> Well, since it is my quote at the beginning, I should answer the question. I should emphasize that this is not my personal opinion. This is how it is done in the competition circuit of judging high level enthusiast and professional competitions. ...



It isn't the way it is done outside of competitions, thank goodness.

Best,
Helen


----------



## skieur (Sep 30, 2008)

Helen B said:


> It isn't the way it is done outside of competitions, thank goodness.
> 
> Best,
> Helen


 
Actually, it is.  Art directors often use this approach to chose between different photos for inclusion into a display, book, gallery etc.  Being more objective, it is easy to justify.

skieur


----------



## usayit (Sep 30, 2008)

Hawaii Five-O said:


> Well your CC can't really fall short since it is your opinion on how you see the photo. There isn't really a right way and wrong way to take a photo. Sometimes people get too caught up in the technicalities of photography



I agree.....   The whole notion that there are rules that make a good and bad photograph really turn me away.  I prefer to seek CC one on one with people that I am familiar with their work/style...  a two way conversation over a glass of beer.  A photograph is as much about technicalities as it is about feelings/stories..   I think that is a point that a lot of people, newbies, experienced, and professionals, all miss.

In fact, I had the idea to start a theme thread urging people to post photos that are unique/different in compositions that does not conform to the traditional sense of proper.  I think I had 3 people posting not including me.... highly disappointing.


This whole thing brings back nightmares of that thread that tried to argue that a "snapshot" isn't a photograph that is worth even a glance.  blah!


----------



## JC1220 (Sep 30, 2008)

skieur said:


> Actually, it is. Art directors often use this approach to chose between different photos for inclusion into a display, book, gallery etc. Being more objective, it is easy to justify.
> 
> skieur


 

I believe what Helen was saying, that outside the "professional," commercial, club competition circuit, etc. it is not done that way in the critiquing of art for the purpose of art's sake. If you are an artist or an aspiring one, mentors, curators and teachers (not necessarily academic) are where you should be looking for your proper critique.

Please correct me Helen if this is not what you meant.


----------



## skieur (Sep 30, 2008)

JC1220 said:


> I believe what Helen was saying, that outside the "professional," commercial, club competition circuit, etc. it is not done that way in the critiquing of art for the purpose of art's sake. If you are an artist or an aspiring one, mentors, curators and teachers (not necessarily academic) are where you should be looking for your proper critique.
> 
> Please correct me Helen if this is not what you meant.


 
Actually it is done that way in teaching art and photography as well. I gave a presentation to art teachers at the request of the art department head in a large city board and learned that composition and technique were a basic part of their curriculum. I also later taught art and photography as well.

skieur


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 30, 2008)

manaheim said:


> I love this.  I wish we could see more of it here.  Direct and to the point.  Some folks get really hurt by it though.  C'est la vie.



Well I would agree IF this were a "professional judging and critique site". It's not though. It's a "Photo Forum". Even says so in the site's name. 

So there are all types here as I'm sure you know. From the P&S casual shooter all the way to the artist/professional extraordinaire. And within all of them there are those who are here just to share or maybe get a _little casual_ feedback. 

I dunno... just my opinion...




Helen B said:


> It isn't the way it is done outside of competitions, thank goodness.
> 
> Best,
> Helen



So true. :thumbup:




usayit said:


> I agree.....   The whole notion that there are rules that make a good and bad photograph really turn me away.  I prefer to seek CC one on one with people that I am familiar with their work/style...



Exactly.



> This whole thing brings back nightmares of that thread that tried to argue that a "snapshot" isn't a photograph that is worth even a glance.  blah!



LOL... Sounds about right to me.



Hertz van Rental said:


> _Anyone_ can give a crit because it is nothing more than a personal opinion.



Yep, and no matter how many "rules" they think they are applying to it that's still the naked truth. Everything - even the "rules" are subjective and require interpretation by the person doing the crit - so it's ALL (at EVERY level!) nothing more than personal opinion. It's physically impossible for it to be anything else but...


----------



## JC1220 (Sep 30, 2008)

skieur said:


> Actually it is done that way in teaching art and photography as well. I gave a presentation to art teachers at the request of the art department head in a large city board and learned that composition and technique was a basic part of their curriculum. I also later taught taught art and photography as well.
> 
> skieur


 
Never said photography doesn't get taught that way, unfortunately it does; which is really fine for commercial, photojournalism, etc. But, certainly not ok for aspiring artists. While I strongly believe any artist should have a solid understanding of art history particularly in photography or their medium, the teaching of things related to graphic arts and "rules" and attempts to teach composition, do more harm than good to young artists, it kills the creative spirit. 

Like I said, curators, mentors and teachers (not always academic) do not critique in the manor you describe, with the only positive I can pull out of what you stated being, the work must stand on its own, but it must be "judged" on its own terms as well.


----------



## skieur (Sep 30, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Well I would agree IF this were a "professional judging and critique site". It's not though. It's a "Photo Forum". Even says so in the site's name.
> 
> So there are all types here as I'm sure you know. From the P&S casual shooter all the way to the artist/professional extraordinaire. And within all of them there are those who are here just to share or maybe get a _little casual_ feedback.
> 
> ...


 
The rules are not subjective at all.  They are part of the Elements Of Design that have been used in the teaching of Art for a very long time.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Sep 30, 2008)

JC1220 said:


> Never said photography doesn't get taught that way, unfortunately it does; which is really fine for commercial, photojournalism, etc. But, certainly not ok for aspiring artists. While I strongly believe any artist should have a solid understanding of art history particularly in photography or their medium, the teaching of things related to graphic arts and "rules" and attempts to teach composition, do more harm than good to young artists, it kills the creative spirit.
> 
> Like I said, curators, mentors and teachers (not always academic) do not critique in the manor you describe, with the only positive I can pull out of what you stated being, the work must stand on its own, but it must be "judged" on its own terms as well.


 
Nothing unfortunate about it.  Any field has learning, concepts, structure, criteria that have been worked out to provide standards for the field and criteria for judging quality work.  Why should photography be any different?

Composition is based on the Elements of Design which all aspiring artists should be aware of, if they were taught art in a recognized school.  I taught in a supertalented School of The Arts and it was certainly taught there by teachers who were also recognized artists in their particular fields.

I don't know how you differentiate between art teachers and academics but qualifications are certainly necessary in Canada for anyone to teach art, as in any other subject or area.  Anyone who simply calls himself an artist would be laughed out of any application for a job in one of our schools.

By the way, I see absolutely nothing wrong with using specific, proven, objective criteria for judging photography. Why should anyone else unless they are engaging in the self delusion of considering themselves artists when their work does not support that delusion.

skieur


----------



## usayit (Sep 30, 2008)

skieur said:


> ......  Any field has learning, concepts, structure, criteria that have been worked out to provide standards for the field and criteria for judging quality work.  Why should photography be any different?
> .......
> Composition is based on the Elements of Design which all aspiring artists should be aware of, if they were taught art in a recognized school.  I taught in a supertalented School of The Arts and it was certainly taught there by teachers who were also recognized artists in their particular fields.




I don't think anyone is saying otherwise... but once the foundation is understood I believe the thing that drives things forward is thinking out of the box beyond what was taught in school  This is no different than any other field of study... with out that drive, we are destined to never experiment, explore, improve, and discover.

The TPF isn't school.... if it was, I wouldn't be here.


----------



## JC1220 (Sep 30, 2008)

skieur said:


> Nothing unfortunate about it. Any field has learning, concepts, structure, criteria that have been worked out to provide standards for the field and criteria for judging quality work. Why should photography be any different?
> 
> Composition is based on the Elements of Design which all aspiring artists should be aware of, if they were taught art in a recognized school. I taught in a supertalented School of The Arts and it was certainly taught there by teachers who were also recognized artists in their particular fields.
> 
> ...


 
Why should it not be different? Why should an aspiring art photographer be aware of the elements of design? What is the benefit?  I can name you 50 masters who knew nothing of these things, nor a college art education, yet they created works that will stand in our most famous museums forever.  How could that be?  These things, ideas, only serve to label, categorize and put into neat little boxes what a photograph is suppose to be, so someone can grade it on how well it conforms or not and help them understand it.  How does that help a student, other than to teach them how to make soulless empty work.  Im sure you would be happy if we all made Michael Kenna photographs that fit into the those boxes, but I prefer my art, my students, to let their lives influence their work and produce something more complex.  True ability to see photographically and with vision does not come from a book or an element of design it comes from personal growth and an innate ability.  You can not teach someone to have vision or how to compose a photograph, well, you can but only at the sacrifice of students creativity; only an uncreative person would attempt to teach composition to aspiring artists. 

Hey, you can have all the neat little boxes you want, I wouldnt want to take that security away from you, but again, when it comes down to who an aspiring photographic artist should speak to about a critique, its curators, mentors and teachers and anyone one of them worth their weight will not critique in the manor you suggest.

"Of the artists I know, I don't know one that makes their art for any other reason than the true deep pleasure in the process of making it. Artists are concerned with making, not with things made. And certainly not with the "idea" of being an artist. No sane person would be an artist just for the image of it. It doesn't pay well enough."


----------



## Bifurcator (Oct 1, 2008)

skieur said:


> The rules are not subjective at all.
> 
> skieur



Hahaha... LOL That's like saying you exist as all things in all places and know all things. Yeah, right. 

All rules are subjective. ALL.

If they weren't then we wouldn't need judges in the first place. This is true in law as well but ESPECIALLY true in art and stuff like that which is FANTASTICALLY subjective in the first place. 

Heck, the human ability _*to even perceive*_ color and shape in a 2D representation of 3D space - a frozen slice of 4D time is highly subjective and varies with GREAT range from individual to individual let alone trying to apply some abstract set of rules they may or may not have a good understanding of. And "a good understanding" &#8800; "a uniform objective knowledge".

What you said is really funny!!! Like, we're all machines with identical attributes & properties and the world around us is simple and already perfectly defined. Bahahaha...


----------



## skieur (Oct 1, 2008)

usayit said:


> I don't think anyone is saying otherwise... but once the foundation is understood I believe the thing that drives things forward is thinking out of the box beyond what was taught in school This is no different than any other field of study... with out that drive, we are destined to never experiment, explore, improve, and discover.
> 
> The TPF isn't school.... if it was, I wouldn't be here.


 
When I was involved with the National Association of Photographic Art which included both top enthusiasts and pros, there was lots of experimentation and some great creative work and the work with the greatest effectiveness and visual impact that won top prizes still fell within many of the parameters of composition and technique that I have previously mentioned.  Moreover some prize winners had no trouble whatsoever moving on to other art venues such as gallery showings and being published in Photo Art magazines.  In other words the same criteria applied.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 1, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Hahaha... LOL That's like saying you exist as all things in all places and know all things. Yeah, right.
> 
> All rules are subjective. ALL.
> 
> ...


 
Until you are on a a top level judging panel looking at artistic photographs you will NOT realize how much consensus there is on top quality photographs.  That kind of consensus would NOT be present, if the process was completely subjective.  

It has nothing to do with your philosophical blattering about machines.  The bottom line is that photography is like any other field.  The creativity is expressed within the parameters of the field.  To use an analogy, you can't write great literature without using language, structure, grammar, spelling etc., and those parameters have certainly NOT restricted creativity or created mindless, identical works.

skieur


----------



## usayit (Oct 1, 2008)

skieur said:


> When I was involved with the National Association of Photographic Art which included both top enthusiasts and pros, ...



Let me repeat something I posted:  "The TPF isn't school.... if it was, I wouldn't be here. "

Let me repeat something else I posted: " I believe the thing that drives things forward is thinking out of the box beyond what was taught in school."

Both still apply to your response and clearly the groups you mention are pushing the envelope beyond their academics as well as working outside the box.  Furthering my point.   

I would surmise that the many members of this forum could care less about credentials...  they view photos with their hearts (not academic minds) and CC accordingly.  As someone already mentioned, many of the most influential and top artists in history did not study art.  I would also surmise that a good percentage of fine art majors don't climb to success.

A layman can look at any product, such as a vehicle, and make assessments on its success as a product; does it look nice, does it function, does it carry innovation and creativity?  A layman can do so without an PHD in automotive design.  It is no different that photo critique.

Creativity and art have no boundaries nor rules.  


BUT.. I do reiterate that being polite is the key.


----------



## usayit (Oct 1, 2008)

skieur said:


> Until you are on a a top level judging panel looking at artistic photographs you will NOT realize how much consensus there is on top quality photographs.  That kind of consensus would NOT be present, if the process was completely subjective.



Ah so...

You have to be a top level judging panel member to look and judge a photo?  Sounds like you just nailed one thing... the snobbish attitude that so many complain about.

Perhaps the TPF is not the forum you are expecting...


----------



## Helen B (Oct 1, 2008)

skieur said:


> When I was involved with the National Association of Photographic Art which included both top enthusiasts and pros, there was lots of experimentation and some great creative work and the work with the greatest effectiveness and visual impact that won top prizes still fell within many of the parameters of composition and technique that I have previously mentioned.  Moreover some prize winners had no trouble whatsoever moving on to other art venues such as gallery showings and being published in Photo Art magazines.  In other words the same criteria applied.



That is not a logical conclusion - it only means that the photographs in question satisfied the criteria of both the competition judges and the particular galleries and 'Photo Art' magazines. It doesn't mean that the same criteria were applied by all.

My own experience is that my competition-winning work (what I call my 'pretty pictures' - easily assimilated, obviously attractive images) is not usually the same as my work which sells the most, which wins me good jobs or which gets critical acclaim (my work that generally requires more effort from the viewer). My experience is that different criteria apply.

Just out of interest, what magazines are you referring to?

Best,
Helen


----------



## manaheim (Oct 1, 2008)

Question, if I may...

Are you guys debating the _truth_ of what skieur is saying?

Or are you debating the merit of that particular approach?


----------



## Helen B (Oct 1, 2008)

I'm not debating what skieur says about the criteria used for judging photo club competitions and the like, I'm debating the truth of the claim that the same criteria are universally applicable for all valuable critique.

I also disagree with skieur about the merit of the approach and his claims that those who do not agree with him are suffering from self-delusion, but that is simply a matter of opinion.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Fox Paw (Oct 1, 2008)

I was a little intemperate and over the top in my prior post.  I apologize.


----------



## abraxas (Oct 1, 2008)

This thread is an excellent example of why I believe, in all except the most novice of cases, open critique on the internet is a total waste of time.


----------



## Chiller (Oct 1, 2008)

abraxas said:


> This thread is an excellent example of why I believe, in all except the most novice of cases, open critique on the internet is a total waste of time.


----------



## Helen B (Oct 1, 2008)

Nice capture.


----------



## Bifurcator (Oct 1, 2008)

Helen B said:


> Nice capture.



LOL 



manaheim said:


> Question, if I may...
> 
> Are you guys debating the _truth_ of what skieur is saying?
> 
> Or are you debating the merit of that particular approach?



I'm personally saying that the premise he's basing his _opinions_ on are not only false and borderline ludicrous but completely and totally impossible. No offense to him or anyone intended tho. Everyone including myself, has brain-farts from time to time. 

According to his last post regular humans become super-human when they're invited onto a panel. Like they lose everything that makes them a thinking caring human being capable of recognizing art and beauty and just apply some "magical rules" in some error free perfect state of consciousness. Hehehe... Some one invite me onto a panel quick! I wanna be God (with a capitol "G") and obtain this level of perfect pure thought and state of being.  :lmao:


----------



## Bifurcator (Oct 1, 2008)

Fox Paw said:


> I was a little intemperate and over the top in my prior post.  I apologize.



I didn't notice anything... Anyway.. it's all good!

Heated debates can be fun IMHO.


----------



## skieur (Oct 1, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Quit the blathering characterizations which are getting silly and explain in straight clear English what is blatantly wrong, "ludicrous" whatever in using simple criteria in technique and composition to evaluate photos. I assure you it is being done widely in all types of venus, artistic and commercial. Keep to the point and stop going off the wall, if that is even possible, given the above.

No wonder, straight CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS Language is a REQUIREMENT in high level critique and the evaluation of photographs.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 1, 2008)

abraxas said:


> This thread is an excellent example of why I believe, in all except the most novice of cases, open critique on the internet is a total waste of time.


 
Of course it is, because few of you KNOW HOW TO DO IT! 

skieur


----------



## manaheim (Oct 1, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Some one invite me onto a panel quick! I wanna be God (with a capitol "G") and obtain this level of perfect pure thought and state of being.  :lmao:


 
You're already God in my book, baybeeeee....


----------



## Overread (Oct 2, 2008)

*leaves a polite note that there are people starving without critique - especially in nature - and could the panel here move location *


----------



## Helen B (Oct 2, 2008)

Helen B said:


> Here's a suggested framework for critiques. I think of it as being Henry James' method.
> 
> _What is the perceived intent? (This needs to be answered before proceeding)
> 
> ...





skieur said:


> ...
> Some caveats should be mentioned. The photo must stand on its own as a success or failure. It does not matter what the photographer was trying to do. From the strictly viewer point of view the question is: Did he\she succeed?.
> ...





Fox Paw said:


> ...
> While I'm dissenting, I'll go back to another post: I don't think it matters what the creator intended when you perceive a creative act. It has to stand on its own feet and if it requires an explanation, or even a title, it's lacking something.
> ...




Maybe it is worth discussing the place of intentionalism in critique.

The assumption of intentionalism does not necessarily mean that the photographer has to explain what the intent was: the image may stand on its own. That's why the first step is answering the question "What is the _perceived_ intent?"

In competitions the overall intent may be easy to comprehend: to produce a picture that will be judged highly by the particular judge or set of judges. I use competition in a loose sense - it may include editorial choice of photographs.

This thread is, however, supposed to be about critique. Critique that is useful to the photographer. The person doing the critique should, I believe, start out by asking _themselves_ 'Why did the photographer take this picture? That's part of the critique at a high level. At a beginner's level it may help if the photographer explains what he or she was trying to do, no matter how mundane that aim may have been. The more specific the aim, the more important it is for the photographer to get pointers about the success of the image with respect to the aim. It can also be very important to discover whether the aim has been perceived by the viewer without any explanation having to be given by the creator.

_"It does not matter what the photographer was trying to do. From the strictly viewer point of view the question is: Did he\she succeed?."_

Succeed at what? If the intent is unimportant, how can one judge success or failure other than by assuming an intent, and hence skipping the first suggested question by using a stock answer.

Best,
Helen

PS I did ask skieur a genuine question that I would still be interested in the answer to: _Just out of interest, what magazines are you referring to?_ as 'Photo Art magazines' (his capitalisation). I'd also be very interested in seeing some of skieur's photos so that I can get a better understanding of where he is coming from. Are there any examples on the web or in TPF threads?
Thanks.


----------



## Bifurcator (Oct 2, 2008)

skieur said:


> Quit the blathering characterizations which are getting silly and explain in straight clear English what is blatantly wrong, "ludicrous" whatever in using simple criteria in technique and composition to evaluate photos.



There's nothing wrong with doing that. But that's NOT what you said. You said in doing so that no "opinions" enter into it and that it's not at all subjective - and *that* is ludicrous and a half!!! It's ALL opinion -  100% of it. 

A rule, concept, idea, technique, or etc. needs to be interpreted by the person attempting to use or understand them. All interpretation is personal interpretation unless the one attempting to understand the idea can become God or something. Personal interpretation equates to opinion. Opinion is subjective in and of itself by definition.

One judge may be of the OPINION that a particular photograph conforms to rule X while another judge is of the OPINION that it does not. This is the main reason we have panels of judge*s* for sports and photography and etc.  Because it's all subjective and based on opinions. If 3 or 4 independent educated opinions agree (or can be averaged) then it's a better representational opinion. It's still an opinion and it's still subjective.

Do you understand yet?

This is simply part of the human condition - think about it.


----------



## Bifurcator (Oct 2, 2008)

manaheim said:


> You're already God in my book, baybeeeee....



:hug::


----------



## skieur (Oct 2, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> There's nothing wrong with doing that. But that's NOT what you said. You said in doing so that no "opinions" enter into it and that it's not at all subjective - and *that* is ludicrous and a half!!! It's ALL opinion - 100% of it.
> 
> A rule, concept, idea, technique, or etc. needs to be interpreted by the person attempting to use or understand them. All interpretation is personal interpretation unless the one attempting to understand the idea can become God or something. Personal interpretation equates to opinion. Opinion is subjective in and of itself by definition.
> 
> ...


 
I don't know why I waste my time with such silliness, so I will restrict my answers.

Explain to me how technique items such as

blurred, ouf of focus,
washed out detail
no detail due to underexposure
unnatural and inaccurate colour and hues
camera movement causing a fuzzy image

EXPLAIN HOW THESE WEAKNESSES ARE MERELY SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS.

In compostion explain how weaknesses such as:

no visual centre of interest
backgrounds distractions such as a tree coming out of someone's head
an unflattering portrait composition that emphasizes skin blemishes

EXPLAIN HOW SUCH WEAKNESSES ARE MERELY SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS"

I throw your question back at you: DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET?

skieur


----------



## Sim (Oct 2, 2008)

skieur said:


> *In compostion explain how weaknesses such as:
> 
> no visual centre of interest*
> backgrounds distractions such as a tree coming out of someone's head
> ...



At the risk of throwing myself into the middle of a minefield here, I thought I'd take the definition of "interest" straight out of the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and let it speak for me:

interest:  a _*feeling*_ that accompanies or causes special attention to an object or class of objects : concern b: something that arouses such attention c: a quality in a thing arousing interest.

If feelings are not subjective, then I don't know what is.


----------



## Overread (Oct 3, 2008)

skieur said:


> Explain to me how technique items such as
> 
> unnatural and inaccurate colour and hues


 
don't know about you, but it depends so much on what sort of photograph you are marking - if its a wildlife shot as part of a documentary view point then yes something like the above is "wrong" but then again if you are creating an "artisic" look different colours can be a key part of the show - heck look at black and white or selective colouring (popular at the moment) or go as far as to look at just some enhanced or altered colour photos - there are tonnes out there.

Skieur you seem very much to be arguing from the point of a documentary photographer without taking into consideration the view of the artistic - which is why your cover all rules are being contested.


----------



## Arch (Oct 3, 2008)

Lets not turn this thread into a slagging match... keep it civil guys.

I think alot of what Skieur has said is true.... however, alot of the issues which people have bought up stem from the original post which i personally do not think is correct.
It may be in the competitions and judging which some people / cultures take part in that there are only 2 sections of grading... but not where im from... and not from what i have been formally taught.



skieur said:


> Formal, professional critique is divided into 2 sections:with detailed comments on  technique and composition.
> 
> Technique includes all the technical aspects of the shot and the use of ISO, aperture, shutterspeed, lenses, filters, depth of field, tripod, flash, colour temperature, reflectors, etc.  to get a shot with visual impact.
> 
> ...




I have always been judged and have judged on a third vital section.... Concept.

In many cases through my eductation... concept outweighed technical ability and composition. This is also true of some competition judging.

.i.e... you have an image which has a wonderfully conceived idea... it sends the viewer a message which gives an instant reaction, understanding and  response.... and is not something the viewer has not seen before, however technically it is not perfect.
The next image is technically perfect and also works compositionally... but is of a park bench with no real concept behind it... no new idea... no inspired artistic expression.

The technically inferior but much better concept will be graded higher based on the wieghts in which each section is given.

This also means that judging can be subjective.




skieur said:


> Some caveats should be mentioned.  The photo must stand on its own as a success or failure.  It does not matter what the photographer was trying to do. From the strictly viewer point of view the question is: Did he\she succeed?.
> 
> skieur



How can it be judged if the person succeeded or not if it is not known what the person set out to achieve?

Again, i understand how harsh some judging can be in terms of whether an image can stand on its own or not... but without the section of 'concept', an image cannot be said to have failed or succeeded in terms of what the image represents... it can only fail on a technical basis, which as mentioned before may not outweigh the initial concept.


At the end of the day in terms of this forum... any critique given is an opinion, some of which may help you understand your work better, others will be completely pointless in your eyes... but none of which are wrong. Any feedback is better than no feedback.


----------



## Helen B (Oct 3, 2008)

skieur said:


> I don't know why I waste my time with such silliness, so I will restrict my answers.
> 
> Explain to me how technique items such as
> 
> ...



I believe that the key reason why _all_ of those are subjective opinions and not absolute weaknesses is intent: they may be used intentionally. They may be right for the particular image or series of images.

Blur, areas of detailess highlight or shadow, 'inaccurate' colours and camera movement can all be perfectly valid elements in an image. There can be good reasons to use them. Perhaps one wishes to draw attention to the particular properties of the photographic process. Perhaps one wishes to convey a sense, a feeling.

Having no centre of interest, or multiple centres of interest may also be a deliberate choice on the part of the photographer. I feel that it often invites the viewer to look more closely: to connect with the original scene.

One person's 'background distraction' may be another person's 'interesting juxtaposition'. A metaphorical or literal tree appearing to come out of someone's head may be there for humorous purposes, for example.

A portrait that shows skin blemishes can be read in a number of ways, one of which is "This is how we really are. We should recognise it and love it."


Instead of dismissing these elements as 'weaknesses', try starting from another place: tell yourself that what the photographer is showing you is what they want to show you, then ask yourself why they are showing you that. Don't assume that everyone shares your values.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Bifurcator (Oct 3, 2008)

Helen B said everything I was about to say so I'll just agree and let it stand.

It's only by "opinion" that we decide any one of those "weaknesses" are legit or not, intentional or not, well executed or not.


----------



## skieur (Oct 7, 2008)

Arch said:


> i.e... you have an image which has a wonderfully conceived idea... it sends the viewer a message which gives an instant reaction, understanding and response.... and is not something the viewer has not seen before, however technically it is not perfect.
> The next image is technically perfect and also works compositionally... but is of a park bench with no real concept behind it... no new idea... no inspired artistic expression.
> 
> The technically inferior but much better concept will be graded higher based on the wieghts in which each section is given.
> ...


 
Actually no.  In any field of art, literature or music, the content is less important than the skill, talent, and technique used in expressing it.  An artist who can't paint, draw, or sculpt,  a writer who cannot communicate in coherent prose, a musician who cannot write, compose or play music are oxymorons.  The same is true of a photographer without the technical skill to take quality photos.

So no, the technically inferior will not be graded higher unless the technical weaknesses are very minor and the artistic and compositional qualities are major.  A technically perfect snapshot with no visual impact versus a photo that grabs visual attention despite minor framing or background issues for example.

skieur


----------



## dEARlEADER (Oct 7, 2008)

skieur said:


> ..a musician who cannot write, compose or play music are oxymorons.
> 
> 
> 
> skieur



How do you explain Brittney Spears?.... or Nickelback?


----------



## skieur (Oct 7, 2008)

Helen B said:


> I believe that the key reason why _all_ of those are subjective opinions and not absolute weaknesses is intent: they may be used intentionally. They may be right for the particular image or series of images.
> 
> Blur, areas of detailess highlight or shadow, 'inaccurate' colours and camera movement can all be perfectly valid elements in an image. There can be good reasons to use them. Perhaps one wishes to draw attention to the particular properties of the photographic process. Perhaps one wishes to convey a sense, a feeling.
> 
> ...


 
Photography and art is part communication and that is why the photo has to stand on its own.  That is why what the photographer is trying to communicate is LESS IMPORTANT than what the viewer actually sees, views, and feels.

If viewers see the background as a distraction, then the photographer has certainly not communicated any other purpose for the particular background and therefore it is a weakness.

Lack of a centre of interest may be a deliberate choice for the photographer but that will not hold the attention or visual interest of the viewer and without that attention there is no communication, invitation to look closer, or eliciting of a feeling or reation.  The photographer has therefore failed and it has become a weakness.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 7, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> How do you explain Brittney Spears?.... or Nickelback?


 
If you are calling them musicians, then you are using the term sarcastically. :lmao:

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 7, 2008)

From ARCH:

How can it be judged if the person succeeded or not if it is not known what the person set out to achieve?

Again, i understand how harsh some judging can be in terms of whether an image can stand on its own or not... but without the section of 'concept', an image cannot be said to have failed or succeeded in terms of what the image represents... it can only fail on a technical basis, which as mentioned before may not outweigh the initial concept. unquote

It does not matter what the photographer set out to achieve.  It matters what the photographer communicated to the viewer through the photo.
If the viewers have no idea what they are looking at and have no reaction at all to the photo, then the photographer has not succeeded irrespective of what he set out to achieve.

And yes, a photographer can certainly fail on a compositional basis because composition can be looked at, as the appropriate use of the technical to communicate artistically.  A technically excellent snapshot for example is not photographic art and certainly does not show up in top artistic venus.

skieur


----------

