How to critique

>>2760070
story of pic related?

ed kashi was doing a workshop here recently, but was marketed as a nat geo something something so i trashed it.

>>2760074
>http://www.natgeocreative.com/photography/120912
>A woman charged with belonging to a separatist party stands at trial.

>>2760070
>tfw I haven't got a 3 walled porta-crib.

>>2760070
That's a question you can't give a general answer to, because it depends on the type of photography, senpai.

>>2760087
Please explain

>>2760098
Here's an example of what I'm trying to say, which I'll short-hand and then just link the piece to which I'm referring. Timothy O'Sullivan was part of an expedition and cataloged a series of rocks with a camera. His original photograph is very dark, foreboding, mysterious; all things which made the photograph interesting as a piece of art. However, these same positive elements made the photograph bad as a geological, evidence-photograph. A photolithograph was made in which these qualities were removed for the sake of re-adding detail and clarity.

The point is, there's no overarching critique you can apply to photography, because what's loved in one type of the medium may be considered negative in another, and vice versa.

http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/lklichfall13t/files/2013/09/Krauss.pdf

That said, there's still qualities which are synonymous with 'professional photography' that you'll see people post on this board all the time, despite much-lauded photographs breaking from these qualities.

>>2760108
You can broaden your definition to include the concept of understanding the goals behind a photo, and matching the quality of the photo against those goals. The goals will certainly change, but the process does not.

The personal tastes of the viewer really don't enter into it, regardless of what /p/ believes. Also, abuse is more or less the exact opposite.

>>2760113
>You can broaden your definition to include the concept of understanding the goals behind a photo

Yeah, this is really the most general you can get, and even then, your general has to do with a case-by-case basis regarding photographic goals, so it isn't really general. There's an amount of necessary intuition that you can acquire by taking the time to look at alot of photographs. It's also helpful in critique to give solutions/better alternatives to flaws that you can see, even if they're as simple as flat out removing the flaw. Helps one come across less aloof and more willing to aid.

>>2760108
>>2760108
I see. Do you think that /p/'s typical harsh or simplistic judgement of photographs (which typically haven't been explained by their creator) is ever justified? Do you think that advice such as "this should be placed here" or "this part should be brighter" is unnecessary and unwarranted when the purpose of a photo has not been elaborated on? Do you think commenting on the appearance of a photo or certain compositional decisions is even necessary for a photographer who doesn't even know why they take photos?

>>2760119
Generally, the photograph will typically show what the photograph's goal is, as odd as that might sound. Since this is about critique, it would be helpful if the creator said what he was going for, but it's unnecessary a lot of the time. I think that /p/ is rampant with 'professional photography' memetics being touted as absolute essentials to a photograph, but I think that as a photographer, even shit critique can help you understand your own craft better, and yes, I think that sometimes commenting on those things is necessary, because the photograph will (as said earlier) typically reveal the photograph's goals, and the intuitive eye can see this and help guide the unwitting photographer who doesn't know why they have taken the photo.

>>2760119
In general, if a photo has been executed well, you can tell what the goal was. think of the /p/ talented people. Alex. 5hoe. Gervin. Aang. NG. Many others. When you look at one of their photos, you know what they were trying to do with it ,and you can tell they succeeded in most aspects of it.

You lose that obviousness with certain types of photography, but those are pretty rare. You also lose that obviousness when you are untalented, and have no idea what you're trying to achieve or express. When you wander down the street and look down an alley, and you see that it's empty except for some trash cans, and you think "Oh thank god, no people to judge me for taking photos...." and you snap some randomly framed shot of the space itself hoping it's a photo worth sharing, and then you go home and you look at it at 100% and feel excited that you can read the fine print on the sticker on the side of the dumpster over there, so you know you got your money's worth in buying that more expensive lens. Hell yeah. Now how to process it... maybe I'll make it blue and under-exposed...

>Do you think that /p/'s typical harsh or simplistic judgement of photographs (which typically haven't been explained by their creator) is ever justified?
Justified? yes, sometimes. But useful? No. Never. If a photographer is not going to put in the effort to present a photo worth looking at, why would he naturally deserve for someone who knows what he's doing to put in time and effort to try to help him?

File: art.jpg (698KB, 2130x1363px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 2130x1363px

>>2760070
Draw a bunch of bullshit lines.

>>2760146
Then write an article in a photo blog about how you use lines to take better pictures. Then post that picture as an example.

File: image.jpg (3MB, 4928x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4928x3264px

Just now.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	838
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:04 14:17:21
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	Unknown
Image Width	4928
Image Height	3264
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2760122
>>2760123
Thank you, anon(s).

>>2760203
Awful halo and aberrations.

>>2760203
I'd say the yellowy neon greeny colors could be slightly less saturated. really harsh with the purple right there

>>2760695
>tfw this was posted almost seven years ago

..and I am still hanging out on /p/ every day. Yuck.