# Why do I like it - one of the HARDEST questions in photography and critique!



## Overread (Dec 16, 2015)

Or alternately the "how to sugar coat and cover it in shiny sparkles" guide to critique. 



Ok no not really. However I felt that it would be prudent to talk about a side of critique which is often forgotten about; that of positive reinforcement and commentary. 

Now many people often start to throw up their hands as soon as this subject is raised. They decry it as sugar coating; they say its not "telling the truth"; they say that their totally negative view is just "telling it as it is" and a multitude of other answers. 

For some its about focusing on the problems and working to  help others find the solutions to improve the overall quality of their work; for others its about focusing on the easier parts to comment on; for some I feel that its also because they've focused on the critical side of critique for so long that they've started to lose focus and vocabulary on how to talk about the positive side of photography. 

We can see this latter problem very prevalent for many of us, indeed even myself, when we look at what comments we give and get which are positive; many just say "GREAT SHOT". To which, when we find ourselves writing it, we should pause and think - why.


WHY do I like this shot? What is the real honest reason I like it so much as to call it great; why is its positive side outweigh its imperfections to the point where I don't even see them (yes every shot has "imperfections" as life is not perfection in itself - though of course there reaches a point where those imperfections are inconsequential). 




For those experienced through to those new to photography those positive sides need to be reinforced. They need to be said; not assumed or taken for granted. Furthermore I think that we as photographers need to learn the positive language and evaluation skills. We need to learn it so that we have the skill and capabilities to convey our thoughts to others and to ourselves - to be able to see works in a good light and to understand why - even if just a little. 
Why is that important? Well I would argue that as important as it is to learn the problems with a shot; to be critical and improve upon imperfection - we also need to be able to look to the positive. To see what we like and why and to understand it and thus be able to follow through that train of thought; to let that side draw us to new compositions or refinement of a method. 



If we are pushed by the negative then we should equally also be pulled by the positive. I feel that for too many of us we focus on the negative; on the push and pushing and not on the pull and pulling. 





So no its not sugar-coating. It's not telling lies in the least. It is about looking for and understanding the positive and learning a new skill in commentary to that effect. It's about us improving the quality of our social skills on the site and in person - to be able to point and stand and say "I love this shot - and I know WHY".


----------



## KenC (Dec 16, 2015)

I agree that it's not sugar coating.  Positive comments let someone know where they are doing relatively well so they don't get distracted by concentrating on an area that needs less attention.  They may also teach a way of analyzing images that would be useful to the poster.  These comments also balance the commentary so someone is less likely to feel picked on.

This of course is the ideal, although many of us often don't have time to do a real full critique, so sometimes we leave it at just commenting on what bothers us.  For someone more experienced this is not that much of a problem.  For the beginners who would most appreciate receiving detailed positive comments as well I make more of an effort to include some positive commentary, but can't always manage it.  Thanks for the reminder to keep making the effort.


----------



## Vtec44 (Dec 16, 2015)

There's no such thing as a perfect photo.  You have to look at the photo as a whole, negatives and positives.  Some people love to point out all the negatives as a way to flaunt their "expertise".  Some photographers only see the flaws in their work and miss out the overall picture.  Then you have people at the other spectrum that can't see the flaws.  IMHO, look for the flaws, know the flaws, understand the flaws, but also look at the big picture.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 16, 2015)

Overread, I liked your commentary, but I felt like your excessive use of white space between the paragraphs seemed forced, and caused the composition to seem unbalanced. Your words were well and carefully chosen, and you did well in avoiding British English words like aluminium, whilst, motorway, and so on, which helped to make your essay more universally understandable by us,_ the Yanks. _Your essay's reason for being, the reason for writing it, could possibly have used a bit more backstory. Overall, I liked your friendly tone, but again...that white space! Good post, and food for thought!


----------



## Overread (Dec 16, 2015)

I blame white space on writing it out in notepad first and bad formatting 

As for why writing it its simple. It's one part trying to encourage us all to write more than just "good shot" when we enjoy something; to turn it into a learning process for the commenter and the photographer in one go. The second reason is the one most will easily catch onto which is positive reinforcement when specifically giving critique.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Dec 16, 2015)

I think positive comments go beyond "a nice addition to a review." I think they're essential in providing guidance for future shots. 

Think of it like this. You take a toddler to a store, and you start in on the "don'ts": Don't touch that, don't walk over there, don't scream! But if you don't give them some direction as to what they can and should do, they're going to keep doing all those things you told them not to. As an adult, it might be easy to see all the things that they could be doing, but for kids who have so little experience in the correct behavior it's much more difficult. 

Beginners are the same way. If you never point out their strengths as a photographer, they won't know where to focus (no pun intended!) and will probably give up. Granted, that is the goal of many critiquers who are so insecure that they fear a beginner will steal business from them, but usually those jerks get called out by real photographers. 

What I'm saying is, only pointing out the flaws can get a person to a point where they can be technically proficient, but that doesn't make them an artist. A photo can be technically correct and still be bad, and it can be technically flawed and still be moving. But we only refer to the latter as art.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 16, 2015)

One of the core tenets of effective critiquing and discussion in general is leading with the positives.


----------



## snowbear (Dec 16, 2015)

I try a balanced approach to critique.  I start with what I like about an image, then go into what I don't like, usually saying what I'd do differently or why I don't like something.


----------



## snowbear (Dec 16, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> One of the core tenets of effective critiquing and discussion in general is leading with the positives.



I guess "I'm positive this photo sucks" doesn't really fit into that model.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 16, 2015)

I think so far, in this admittedly limited number of responses to the OP, is this gem:

"
_We can see this latter problem very prevalent for many of us, indeed even myself, when we look at what comments we give and get which are positive; many just say "GREAT SHOT". To which, when we find ourselves writing it, we should pause and think - why.
WHY do I like this shot? What is the real honest reason I like it so much as to call it great; why is its positive side outweigh its imperfections to the point where I don't even see them (yes every shot has "imperfections" as life is not perfection in itself - though of course there reaches a point where those imperfections are inconsequential). _"

I think this segment of the OP is more important than the slant about critiques and negatives and imperfections.


----------



## desertrattm2r12 (Dec 16, 2015)

Derrel is nuts. I like that. I am, too.


----------



## dennybeall (Dec 17, 2015)

I try to keep the two aspects of photographs separate. The technical aspects, like focus, can be definitively critiqued but composition is such a personal opinion aspect that a person's opinion is worthwhile to hear, whether positive or negative.
I can say if I personally like a photo but certainly not that it's correct!!!!!!


----------



## jcdeboever (Dec 17, 2015)

I like this thread.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Overread (Dec 18, 2015)

dennybeall said:


> I can say if I personally like a photo but certainly not that it's correct!!!!!!



Does it have to be a right or wrong viewpoint to be valid? 
Composition certainly has theories and trends and standards otherwise the concept of the technical being right or wrong wouldn't hold any water either. If the subject being sharp is a technical correctness then it only is so because of a generalist desire for the subject to be sharp for the composition. 

Composition might be more hazy and less well understood (and abysmally taught at schools in general), but its certainly there in the world.


----------



## JoeW (Dec 18, 2015)

Lots of people like to say "there are no rules" when it comes to art.  I think that's wrong. and I think that also goes to the heart of "why I like it" when it comes to a particular photo.

First, let's set aside personal experiences.  You may like a photo b/c it's of a location where you spent your honeymoon.  Or the face of the model reminds you of the first person you ever fell in love with.  Or the dog in the picture is a doppleganger for your first pet.  Those are about personal experiences and happenstance...they aren't controlled by the photographer ("gee, I'm going to create a photo that Derrel likes by finding a model that resembles his niece and posing it in his favorite vacation setting and she'll be eating his favorite candy bar while wearing a sweater that matches one he gave his niece for Christmas").

Second, I would argue that there are thousands of rules when it comes to composition.  The reason why photography is ART is that no rules are absolute, you can't follow all of them (in fact many of them contradict) so we are constantly choosing which rules to apply (and then how well we apply them) vs. which ones we ignore (intentionally or through ignorance).  For instance, a basic rule of portraiture is "don't cut off the top of the head."  But if I want a photo that exaggerates the size of the figure (I want him to look gigantic and imposing and threatening) then maybe I use a wide angle to get distortion, I add the appropriate grimace as my model (with a fake scar) leans to the camera, I crop off all other surroundings and I cut off the top of the head--and I have a claustrophobic portrait that makes you want to lean back to get more personal space.   One of the Capa shots of Omaha beach  http://pictify.saatchigallery.com/4...andy-france-by-robert-capa-from-magnum-photos violates most technical rules of good photography (fuzzy, not focused, horizon not level, over-exposed in most areas) but it's one of the most iconic photos of WW-2, it was used to create a feel for the Omaha Beach sequence of "Saving Private Ryan" and it leaves you with a feel of danger and desperation and frantic chaos.  The right rules/guidelines when applied intelligently (either by design or accident) can create a photo that--if those rules really work for you, will have you going "wow--I really like this."

So my answer to the OP is this:  if you discount the personal synchronicity (I like the photo b/c it's of a site in Yosemite where I spent an anniversary and shot the same picture at the same time of day), if you dig down deep you'd discover that the photo probably appeals to you (i.e.: "you LIKE it") b/c there is a combination of composition rules that the photo follows that work for you or that are appealing to you.  That doesn't make it a great photo.  But it could mean that you struggle to find natural "S" shapes in nature and then suddenly here's a photo of a lovely winding country road, shot with a 400mm zoom so the road is compressed, with high contrast so the road (gleaming with reflected sunlight) stands out like a silver ribbon around the black landscape.

Composition rules don't exist b/c some ancient group of artists decided this is how it must be and the rest of us just need to accept it.  They describe how humans (most humans) react to particular visual and spatial arrangements and color combinations.

It's just that most of us don't know enough about rules of composition to say "well, I really like this photo b/c it show closely follows Cartier-Bresson's 'golden ratio' rule and even has a golden tint that works with a lovely contrasting palette."  Nah, we usually just go "I really like it.  It just caught my eye--can't say why."


----------



## Vtec44 (Dec 18, 2015)

There are no rules, only guidelines


----------



## Derrel (Dec 18, 2015)

JoeW said:
			
		

> ...."gee, I'm going to create a photo that Derrel likes by finding a model that resembles his niece and posing it in his favorite vacation setting and she'll be eating his favorite candy bar while wearing a sweater that matches one he gave his niece for Christmas")."



Joe....start here...





 

Lizzie_faux pencil drawing.jpg


----------



## Derrel (Dec 18, 2015)

JoeW said:


> Lots of people like to say "*there are no rules*" when it comes to art.  I think *that's wrong*. and I think that also goes to the heart of "why I like it" when it comes to a particular photo.
> 
> SNIP>>>
> 
> Composition rules don't exist b/c some ancient group of artists decided this is how it must be and the rest of us just need to accept it.  *They describe how humans (most humans) react to particular visual and spatial arrangements and color combinations*."



People who have studied fine art at the university level know that what was said above is true. There's even a word used to describe the concept that most people actually agree upon standards and meanings and interpretations of things: intersubjectivity.

Many folks who have never taken an art class, a drawing class, or a design class are fond, very fond, of proclaiming that "Art is entirely subjective." Sorry, but NO, that is not true at all.  Art is most definitely not "entirely subjective".  Stating that art is "entirely subjective" shows  a fundamental misunderstanding of how art, and design, and compositon actually work, and shows an unawareness of the fact that art, design, and composition have very well-understood concepts, meanings, and significances. Art is *intersubjective* in its nature.

*intersubjective*
_adjective_  in·ter·sub·jec·tive  \ˌin-tər-səb-ˈjek-tiv\
*Definition of intersubjective*

_1_:  involving or occurring between separate conscious minds _<intersubjective communication>

_


----------



## Vtec44 (Dec 18, 2015)

<-- Graduated with a Bachelor of Arts.  Painting, drawing, digital art, art history, and all the fundamentals.  I learned most of the lines, compositions, colors, and lighting in all the painting classes.  Strangely, I learned how and when to break all the fundamental guidelines in my life drawing classes.  My professor encouraged us to simplify and be free, very enlightening concept.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 19, 2015)

Vtec44 said:
			
		

> <-- Graduated with a Bachelor of Arts.  Painting, drawing, digital art, art history, and all the fundamentals.  I learned most of the lines, compositions, colors, and lighting in all the painting classes.  Strangely, I learned how and when to break all the fundamental guidelines in my life drawing classes.  My professor encouraged us to simplify and be free, very enlightening concept.



So that means you've got a good understanding of the elements and principles of design; you have actually STUDIED something and learned some of the many fundamentals that make up the visual arts--so that education and study and learning and practice and understanding of fine art history, theory, and fundamentals puts you ahead of 99.9% of people who call themselves _photographers_.

Then there are the people who just bought a camera at Best Buy two years ago, and decided to start shooting photos...and proclaiming that, "Everything in art is totally subjective."


----------



## Overread (Dec 19, 2015)

I blame another part of the problem on a seemingly lack of artistic literature within the photographic community. Speak of exposure and sure Understanding Exposure appears as a recommendation - but so to does a slew of other publications. 

Speak of art and we get a handful of suggestions; but none really push into what I'd say is the gap between beginner and intermediate - and a LOT of general photography books focus on basic understanding of concepts like leading lines and the good old rule of thirds (which is a really nice rule but tends to not always work for more complex scenes or when you've multiple focal points of interest etc..)

As a community photographers appear not to have enough drive or understanding to push artistic understanding and teaching - and I feel this is a barrier MANY bump into as they advance into intermediate and can control the tool. I think its where many get the idea that there is no science to art; no method or theory; because they find it nearly impossible to find guidance beyond the basic introductory element.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 19, 2015)

Liking or loving something is personal emotion.  

Explaining why...  now that's a different kettle of fish.  Edumacation (to quote Derrel) gives you the vocabulary.  It doesn't mean you will understand why you are feeling what you are feeling, but it does give you a fighting chance at making it intelligible to someone else why THIS image is "great", and THAT image is a poor imitation of a masterpiece by an unskilled clod with a bad case of self-delusion.

Improving on what one likes - now we need talent, imagination, skill, and education.  Although, sometimes talent and imagination is enough to overcome the deficiencies in skill and education.  And then again, the question becomes "improving" for which audience?  If your personal taste runs to bright colours on black velvet, or limpid-eyed puppies held by impossibly-cute little girls, there's no need to apologize, except if you're trying to convince others of your good taste and esthetic judgement.  But IF you are trying to impress, say, the likes of the jury of the Salon des Arts de Paris, you might have to have a much clearer idea of convention, popular taste, and "educated" sensibilities.  And for that audience, going on the significance of the shadow line in the image as being representative of Jungian crisis in the current world, will probably get you some nods.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is "context".  Why an image exists can be just as important as what the image shows.  As photographers, we are encouraged to focus just on the image content, and ignore any verbiage (like title, description) that may accompany it.  From a purely visual perspective, that may be fine.  However, I think we lose a lot of appreciation of what that image may represent if we are not aware of the context of the image - who took it, why did they take it, who did they take it for, and so on.  We humans make sense of the world by telling stories, be they real ones (how we met our spouse, for instance), or fake ones (



Spoiler: things we pretend are real



like Santa Claus, Easter bunny, honest politicians who have our best interests at heart


).  While images CAN tell a story, they also can be used to mislead, and it is worth our while to dig a little and understand the background to how an image came to be.


----------



## JoeW (Dec 19, 2015)

Pgriz, actually I disagree with the fundamental thesis of your last post.  If someone really studies art and composition, then you can look at something and almost always understand why you like it or why it's appealing.

Think of it this way:  someone who has studied music history, composition, and theory can listen to music in a range of genres and say "this is why I like Shostakovich, why I like this hip-hop tune but not that one, why I don't care for Dylan's original version of "The Watchtower" but I really like the cover of the same song by Jimi Hendrix."  They can explain, usually in technical terms.  B/c they understand how a particular tempo or key or instrumentation can create particular moods or reactions, they can judge how well the performers played.

I agree that a lot of people can say "I like this" and can't explain why (whether it's wine, music, photography, or some other kind of artistic production).  But that's usually b/c they don't have the training and depth to understand within that speciality why certain things provoke particular reactions.


----------



## Overread (Dec 19, 2015)

I would add that sometimes its not that they don't "know" why they like something, but also that they lack the language to express themselves; or have not heard the language to know that its possible to express in such a way. Language is a skill unto its own and often our thoughts and feelings can get hindered by its limitations - if we train ourselves to be more observant and gain more depth and breadth to our language we can find new ways to express ourselves and communicate with other.s


----------



## Tim Tucker (Dec 19, 2015)

It's simple, there's a rhythm and harmony in visual art just as there is in music. And just as you have to learn to listen in music you have to learn to look in art. It's not easy, and it's something that can only be seen to be understood. It's not about quantifying it in words or applying your own logical framework of how you think it should be.
No big white gap...
I see images here that have been flattened with over-sharpening, or have had all the colour washed out with tone-mapping, contrast boosts and over saturation of the colours. I'm wondering why the photographer can't see this, all they have to do is look. But maybe it isn't that easy to see sometimes. I try to show differences, show how things could be, offer a different logic.
Even less of a white space...
I think that the biggest problem with photographers is that they cling too much to the logical and technical framework. Once you realise how fluid and relative human sight is you realise how flexible the framework is.
The ones claiming that there are no rules seem to me to be the ones who cling the most strongly to the logical framework with which they justify their actions.
Just open your eyes.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 19, 2015)

I have often encouraged people interested in becoming better at photography to take a small amount of initiative, and to search out information on the universal, fundamental, basic, and absolutely essential underpinnings of visual communication: the *elements and principles of design*.

The Elements, for example: line, shape,direction,size,texture,color, value. Some people also consider mass, separate from size.

The Principles, for example: balance, gradation, repetition,contrast, dominance, harmony, unity.

Some people add other principles, like variety, and dissonance, etc.

The web is filled with information regarding the elements and principles of design. Once a person knows of the existence of these concepts, and understands what the elements and principles ARE, then it's possible to start _MAKING_ photographs that leverage these concepts. These are the very basic-basic things. For example, in the construction field or house-building we might have site selection, foundations, framing, roofing, doors and windows, heating systems, electrical wiring, plumbing, cooling systems, interior finishing. Those are sort of the basic principles used in creating buildings, at least as I understand the building of buildings.

You'll never hear me say, "Ahhhh...building a house, it's allllll totally subjective. There are NO right ways, NO wrong ways of doing it. It's all just a matter of opinion!"


----------



## pgriz (Dec 19, 2015)

@JoeW:  There's a difference between feeling and knowing.  When I saw the woman who would become my wife, my immediate feeling was "I gotta get to know her better" (actually, I'm paraphrasing a little - my feeling was somewhat more direct).  That was the feeling part - the thinking part didn't kick in until much later.  And so, now the thinking part of me can say that she's a great wife and partner because of her character, her sense of humor, her emotional strength, her integrity as a person, her common sense...

When I listen to music, or look at a picture, or read an enjoyable book or taste something delicious, I let the initial impression guide me.  I try NOT to think about the "why" and "how".  In fact, I really do try and suppress the thinking part - that will come into play later.

However, if I am going to create something, then the training and education and skill all kick in to guide me in the creative process.  I am totally in sync with Derrel's thinking - some of the tools of the creative process are the design principles, when coupled with one's imagination and originality, create something of interest and value.  Unless one is amazingly talented, it's difficult to come up with something truly remarkable without some grounding in the basics of whatever medium you want to express yourself in.

Returning to Overread's original point of being able to explain why something appeals, it occupies the middle ground between the sensing/feeling and the constructive creation.  Having the design vocabulary certainly helps convey to someone else what it is that you're focusing on, but that description/analysis is not necessarily the gut feeling experience you have felt.  There are enough images that are powerful and evocative despite having many technical faults, just as there are very well crafted images that are perfection from a technical point of view, and that have zero emotional engagement.  

In my own evolution as a photographer, I have tried to master the technical side of my craft to the point that it fades away into the subconscious.  I'm not there yet, but that's one of my goals.  It's a quite a bit like driving - you think about the technical aspects like steering, braking and accelerating when you're learning, but these things fade into the subconscious once you've mastered them, and you focus your attention on the external world outside of your car - ie the awareness of the traffic and flow.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 19, 2015)

Overread said:


> I blame another part of the problem on a seemingly lack of artistic literature within the photographic community. Speak of exposure and sure Understanding Exposure appears as a recommendation - but so to does a slew of other publications.
> 
> Speak of art and we get a handful of suggestions; but none really push into what I'd say is the gap between beginner and intermediate - and a LOT of general photography books focus on basic understanding of concepts like leading lines and the good old rule of thirds (which is a really nice rule but tends to not always work for more complex scenes or when you've multiple focal points of interest etc..)
> 
> As a community photographers appear not to have enough drive or understanding to push artistic understanding and teaching - and I feel this is a barrier MANY bump into as they advance into intermediate and can control the tool. I think its where many get the idea that there is no science to art; no method or theory; because they find it nearly impossible to find guidance beyond the basic introductory element.



There is a big difference between the illustrative aspect of photography (including documentary, product, portraiture), and the open-ended forms such as street, abstract, and certain types of portraiture.  In the former, the role of the photographer is to convey the essence of a scene, situation, product or person in a clear way.  I call these images "finished" images in that the photographer has assembled all the pieces and elements that are needed to fully interpret the image.  These contrast with "unfinished" images, where the photographer is deliberately ambiguous and thereby invites the viewer to complete the image by adding their interpretation.

I find that "unfinished" images are actually quite a bit harder to make because one has to leave open certain aspects to allow the viewer to "enter" the image and interact with it.  I have to suppress my desire to tell them (the viewer) the punchline or the ending.  This is something I've learned from my artist wife, who has evolved her art from the illustrative to the suggestive.  It's quite a trick to look at one of her images and see all kinds of detail - which if you look closely, you find that the detail is actually NOT there, but your mind supplies it because you are expecting to see it.  And then you have this mental flip-flopping between what is actually there, and what your mind insists it sees.

Street photography is an example of the art of the suggestion - whatever scene the photographer captured, it usually requires some examination of the image to figure out what's actually going on.  This participation of the viewer in the interpretation of the image is something that is desirable, but not easy to do.


----------



## Bartcephus (Jan 29, 2016)

Purely technically correct photographs can be very unappealing.  Purely artistic photographs can be technologically warped and incorrect.  Everyone has a different life experience by which they gauge the quality of a photograph or image, and no one opinion is entirely right, but is entirely right to that particular individual.

Picasso, Vahn Gouh, Michaelangelo each had different styles and goals.  That has taught me that there are different markets for different styles.  Some folks like street photography, some like journalistic styles, and others like portriats, some like landscapes, others like animals, some like humorous, some like seriousness, and sometimes it just depends on your mood.  If the goal is to sell portriats, then you would desire your image to appear to the largest market if you want popularity or demand for your talents.  Accordingly, seeking critique from those in that market would or should be given more consideration.  If when you define your style or technique, sometimes it works well to seek advise of others on how to create the desired effect, or get technical advise.  But many times, seeking C & C is an attempt to find validation or acceptance by others and relieve the insecurities and anxieties of the unknown.

What good is an image if it is not shared?  Why do we share our photographs?  What are we seeking to accomplish? Will this image succeed or fail in meeting our goal.  Was the technical defect intentional or was it neglect?  Does it add or detract from the purpose of the shot?  Is our goal to please our own attitudes and perceptions, or is I to give a customer what he or she wants?  Who is directing the goals of the session?  Why do some very talented artists remain unemployed?  Is it because they are not giving the customer what they want because they are producing their own style/twist.  If you want profit, appeal to the masses.  If you want self expression, do your own thing but don't fear criticism and commentary.  Somewhere between these extremes you will most likely find your calling.....


----------

