Intimidating? Impossible? Here’s how.

Before we get started, this is all in the context of offering an image for critique from a group of other photographers. I’ve written before (Critiquing others to improve your photographs and I know WHAT it is but WHY did you take that photo? both on the Nick Prior Photography website) about the value of critique as a way of getting better. Here I want to offer a simple structure to get you talking about your picture before letting other people loose on it.

Actually, before talking about a picture, we need to select one in the first place. For a critique to offer something useful to you, it would be better to choose a photograph where you explicitly set out with something specific in mind. It will be so much easier to talk about. You’ll not learn so much from the the superb accident!

Start with some context

It is sometimes really hard to know what to say when you talk about your picture. That can often be a result of acting intuitively when pressing the shutter release. Take this as an example:

Blue flowers** at Edinburgh’s Botanical Gardens (**That’s all I know!)

Where do you start? Nice colours? Actually that’s not a bad place to begin. The objective that afternoon was to photograph colours in the Botanical Gardens, concentrating on complementary and/or adjacent hues. You really could begin by talking about wanting to capture the nearly adjacent blues and greens.

Describe what’s in the picture

Sometimes, when you talk about your picture, just describing out loud what you’ve got in your image is sufficient to indicate where you might go next with it. A quick description would concentrate on the blue flower and green background, possibly naming it, and stop there. But there’s more to it.

There are in fact at least a dozen discrete blue flowers in the frame in varying states of detail and focus. There is rather less green stuff in the background, and none of it is in focus. In fact there is very little of the image that is really sharp – just one or two wispy fronds on the very top of the main blue flower, and a couple of spots on a couple of the others. And nothing else.

It is worth being a little bit forensic about this stage. Itemising what you’ve got is a good first step to get you on the road to examining whether you need more or less of it.

Get a bit technical

But not too much – this isn’t the time to get into f-stops and shutter speeds in detail. In this case I might talk about how I chose a macro lens to get close in to the flowers and exclude as much of the surroundings as possible. I had in the back of my mind the paper thin focus that would arise from this decision, and I wanted to see if I could get the effect of flowers arising from the blurred green depths like blue goldfish in a green pond. Or something.

Did it work?

Well, to some extent I think it did. I was successful in excluding most of anything that wasn’t green or blue, and the blue has enough in focus to be tantalising about what is left blurry.

What would I do another time?

Turn up on a day when the wind wasn’t blowing? Seriously, that was an issue that affected how I approached this picture. The flowers were moving around enough to make framing the shot somewhat haphazard. A tripod would not have made things any better.

So, given the circumstances, less blue, more green? It might have been more effective to isolate more clearly the blue flower. However, part of the reason why the pictures works for me is the hint that there was a mass of blue flowers. So many that I wasn’t able to exclude them all.

What do I want to learn?

So now ask for other people’s opinions. You can expect a range of thoughts ranging from the technical (“use a tripod”, or “how about focus stacking…”) to the naive (“very nice colours”) via more useful territory. In this case, useful would relate back to the main objective of capturing the colours. Enough blue? Sufficiently “in your face”?

You may find you have to be a little provocative when you talk about your picture so your fellow critics feel that have permission to say things that they may otherwise think you’ll find hurtful. Actually, that is possibly the best sort of critique response. Much more useful than the anodyne and content-free “Nice shot”!

This article was originally published on September 9th 2019 on the Nick Prior Photography website 

The post Talk about your picture appeared first on Fotobuddies.

Hebden Bridge, Nick Prior 2010

Back in 1978, I remember being very taken by a picture in a newspaper of a wintery Pennine town, even though at that point I had yet to visit. The rows of grey houses outlined in the snow, the mills, the school and the churches spoke of a hard-worked community that matched the millstone grit on which it was built. It was, of course, Hebden Bridge and the picture was Hebden Bridge in the snow, 1978 by Denis Thorpe. Thorpe was a photojournalist working for The Guardian newspaper at the time. Nowadays the opportunities for a photographer being paid by the mainstream press to produce landscapes such as this one have become vanishingly rare. Thorpe produced many of the iconic images during the period of industrial unrest but the lines of Hebden Bridge clearly spoke to me. What struck me, then as now, is how Thorpe has captured a complex interlocking series of streets and buildings but in such a way as to simplify it. He almost picks it apart and puts it back together again – the houses here, the school just there, streets so, and so. I moved to Oldham south of Hebden Bridge in the early 90’s. However, it wasn’t until over 30 years after Thorpe’s picture had been published that I found myself peering over the same wall high up above Hebden Bridge, camera in hand, trying to not to slip down the bank into the town in the snow. I hadn’t looked at Thorpe’s picture since the 70’s but I had a faint memory of it. The photographic opportunity was clear though.

Denis Thorpe – Hebden Bridge in the snow 1978
Hebden Bridge in the Snow by Denis Thorpe republished here under the provisions of The Guardian’s  Open Licence Terms.

Hebden Bridge 2010 – Nick Prior

Compare: contrasts

Looking at the two pictures together you can see the effects of 30 years of change, but perhaps not as much as you might have expected. The camera positions were more or less the same. There was really only one location to use on the road up to Heptonstall but it looks as though Thorpe had found a viewpoint slightly higher up, a view now obscured by trees.

Buildings

The first thing you notice is the treatment of the buildings. I had a misty day with low contrast and dealing with that has darkened the shadows and flattened the image. Thorpe, with his newspaper print experience, was able to increase the exposure to boost the whites and increase the contrast. The roofs become more pronounced, whether they are covered in snow or not. (The increased use of loft insulation may be one reason for the whiter roofs in my picture.) The diagonal lines formed by their repeated chimney stacks stand out more clearly. There’s much more open ground evident back in 1978. Maybe some of that is as a result of more snow that winter’s day, but look at the top right and left – rows of new buildings high up above the town now, filling in some of the gaps. Here again,  Thorpe’s contrast works well – the snowy patches stand out more starkly against the built areas. The silhouetted trees and the spaces between them have echoes of Breughel’s Hunters. You certainly get the same feeling of cold, and you can certainly imagine someone trudging home through the snow over the moor at the top of the picture.

Vegetation

The other big difference is the trees: far more nowadays. Not just on the hill above the town but also down the streets. The trees have been allowed to grow over the past 30 years.  The town had a much closer relationship with the surrounding countryside back then, and clearly for much of its history. The town appears framed by the snowy more open ground in Thorpe’s image. It’s much easier to place the town in a context surrounded by moorland and, from the wall in view at the very top of the picture, the drystone walls of sheep enclosures. None of this is so evident today. Other pictures I took on the same day looking further right across the town were obscured by tree growth just in front of the camera. I would not have been able to frame the picture in the same was as Thorpe did – just too much greenery.

New developments

The effect of the sparser buildings in Thorpe’s image is harsher. You get far more of the impression of serried ranks of discrete terraces in his picture, almost a jigsaw effect. Mine is more homogenous, less exposed: perhaps the effect of the trees at the top of the picture. Thorpe harks back to artisan weavers in their lofts with bare countryside just outside the door; a more precarious existence. The chimney at the bottom of Thorpe’s image indicates the industry down in the town. I didn’t manage to get the chimney into the frame and the effect is perhaps a little less naked industrialisation.

Thorpe’s Influence

I’d kept his image in the back of my mind for 30 years. I now realise that Denis Thorpe was someone doing visually what I found interesting to do in other fields: finding patterns, understanding how things fit together, explaining the complex. Complexities are not obscured but the patterns within them are emphasised, elegantly even. All something I still aspire to in my own photography.

Here are some of my own photographs which I feel were influenced, however subliminally, by that monochrome picture of Hebden Bridge.

[See image gallery at fotobuddies.co.uk]

This article was originally published on October 28th 2018 on the Nick Prior Photography website 

You can see more of Denis Thorpe’s work at the Guardian’s Print Sales website.

Hebden Bridge in the Snow by Denis Thorpe republished here under the provisions of The Guardian’s  Open Licence Terms.

The post Denis Thorpe and Hebden Bridge appeared first on Fotobuddies.

The critiquing process, especially when done well, will help not only the recipient but also the person doing the critique. Putting into words how you feel about an image can only help you when you assess your own work.

What’s in a critique?

A critique might start by describing what you can see in an image and perhaps how it makes you feel. If you know something of the photographer’s intention you might also comment on how far the picture delivers on it. You would normally also describe elements that contribute to the delivery, and why, as well as elements that distract.

Making assumptions

You may not had have the opportunity to discuss the photographer’s intentions. Be careful that you don’t just assume you know what they are based solely on what you see in the picture.

You should review only what is put in front of you. You should assume that anything you see in the picture has been done for a reason. To start with anyway. Take this image as an example:

Ancoats Canal Bridge, Manchester

Much against my better judgement, I entered this image for a competition. The judge complained there was not enough detail in the tunnel at the top left of the picture. In other words he assumed I’d made a mistake and underexposed the area. I suppose I could have helped him out by titling the picture something like “Descent to Hell”. I thought it was pretty clear what it was about. If he had said it made him feel confused or uncertain I would have been less bothered.

As it is, he made an assumption about the picture. He ran the risk of telling us more about himself and his imagination than about the picture. That won’t help the critique very much!

Earning the right to be critical

If you’re giving the photographer your feedback directly you hope that he acts upon your comments. You might focus on the elements that work well and mention only a couple of the bits that don’t. In fact, some consider that giving two pieces of positive feedback qualifies you to offer just one piece of criticism.  And if you can’t find two positives to talk about, you aren’t looking hard enough!

You might think that this is being “soft”. If a picture has few redeeming features, doesn’t the photographer need to be told? Actually it is much more about being pragmatic. We need to provide the recipient a way into recognising for themselves where changes might be beneficial.

If you’re critiquing for your own education, you may choose not to hold back quite so much!

Critiquing an image

There is no right way to structure a critique. There have probably been as many methods created as there are photographers. Something approaching the following would be a good basis for assessing the success of an image.

Understand the Intent

Unless you know what the photographer intended, you are not qualified to comment on how the picture should have looked. Nor should you offer suggestions about specific improvements. You may think the intention is obvious from the picture. However, you must make the effort to understand what the photographer felt was important.

Making an inexperienced photographer describe what their intention was is an important part of the critique. It may be they haven’t thought about it before. If so, it provides the hook on which the recipient can hang the ideas that are being offered.

Assess the Content

Statue of Neptune, Bologna. Let’s try critiquing this image

What’s in the picture? It sometimes helps the recipient if you actually describe the picture out loud. For instance, our image isn’t just a picture of a statue. There’s also a castle, some people, a fountain, a plinth and so on. You may find the photographer hasn’t really seen all the details in the rush to take a photograph of the statue. Having someone describe the content more fully might be enough to convince them, say, of the need to simplify things.

Some reviewers look for value that the photographer has added to the photographed scene. Instead of simply pointing and clicking, there might be evidence of thought or insight beyond the immediately obvious. In our example, the relationship between Neptune, all those cherubs and the passers-by could be an indication that this isn’t just a snapshot of a statue.

Review the Composition

One way of getting into this in a helpful way is to describe how you feel your eyes being drawn round the content (or not!)

In the case of our statue, we have a spectacularly muscular naked Neptune dominating the scene. However somewhat incongruously he glances askance at the rather less imposing specimens scurrying by on their way to the office. The off-centre composition (rule of thirds!) and Neptune’s eye-line (what he is looking at) would probably feature heavily in this part of the discussion.

Reflect on the Aesthetic

This is probably the most subjective element. You should handle it sensitively when delivering a critique face to face.  You may well have your own thoughts and ideas. The critique however should refer back to the photographer’s intentions rather than the reviewer’s assumptions.

You would probably mention some of these:

• the atmosphere the picture evokes
• the originality of the image
• the emotional response the picture generates and what triggers it
• the use of the light
• how a monochrome conversion contributes to the image

In our picture, the misty light in the picture above hints at autumnal weather but Neptune is standing proud. He is almost silhouetted against the background, and lording it over all who pass. The mist shrouded castle refers back to a time when the occupants looked down on Neptune, but no longer. He dominates the square.

Last and very much least, consider the Technical

Again be careful not to make assumptions about how the photographer approached the picture. A blurry picture isn’t necessarily a mistake (but it usually is.) Again this will work better if you can engage in a dialogue with the photographer. You need to understand something of the choices she made when she pressed the shutter button. You can discuss topics like shutter speed and aperture for example when you have found out the intention was to isolate the subject in some way.

With our statue, you would probably talk about the converging verticals of the castle in the background. It might be the photographer hasn’t really noticed them.  You might mention that if the edges of the building were square to the frame, it might then make the statue appear even more imposing in its environment. But you might also mention that looking up at the statue is also a valid response to it. The converging lines could be an appropriate result of that decision.

How does critiquing help you, the critic?

I think it must be pretty clear that you can be both critic and photographer, and critique your own images. Get specific with your pictures after you have taken them. It will have the same benefit as being clear about your intentions beforehand.

Putting your likes and dislikes into words will certainly help when it comes to converting a scene unfolding in front of you into a two dimensional image.

Just try to leave the technical aspect of your review to the end – it’s much the least important aspect of the critique.

This article first appeared on March 17th 2018 at Nick Prior Photography‘s website.

The post Critiquing others to improve your photographs appeared first on Fotobuddies.