Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

It should be a continuous flow, and never be one over the other.

The "technical" is cause and the "feeling" is effect. The order they might be presented in a critique can differ, but to be effective both should be discussed. And between them is another category where the physical effect on the image is discussed separately from the emotional effect on the viewer.

Images, be they photographs or otherwise, are a visual means of communications. An image is divided into compositional parts as symbols, much the same as a written paragraph has sentences and words that are symbols. The order they are in, which symbols are more dominant and which are subordinate in relation to the symbol that is the subject as well as to each other, can all be described in scientific terms and by the technologies that are used to order them.

And that is what makes up the photograph. A critique can list these symbols, and discuss how the priorities are ordered and describe how they interact to then affect the viewer. Various "rules of thumb" are known ways to arrange symbols to get greater impact. The Rule of Thirds is the best know example.

In the end though, a critique of course has to evaluate the actual result of the technical causes and ordered effect. What kind of emotions does it all cause in a viewer? Feelings of "Wow, it's wonderful"? are important and different from, "I wanted to cry."

Hence it is true that the common critiques are shallow, and only talk about the emotional effect an image has on them personally. It is still a valid slice of critique though. More thought out critiques will include discussion of why symbols have what effect in causing such emotions. That is still perhaps shallow! An in depth critique has to also discuss proper priorities, and the technical aspects of raising or lowering symbol priorities.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

I will be looking forward to your next in depth critique. Maybe then I'll glean some inkling of what you are talking about.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

If you want to learn, it isn't at all difficult to start at the beginning and ask about the first thing that is not clear to you.

Do you understand the difference between discussing techniques and technical issues that are applied to a photograph, and first the effects of those techniques on the composition that is viewed when looking at the photograph, followed secondly by the emotions that photographs evoke mentally in viewers?

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

And I believe that all of the moderators would let a "nice shot" comment stand if it was explained why they thought it nice. I also agree that there is nothing wrong with saying one or two things that you like or don't like. As we do this more I see less benefit to doing a full critique. Once everyone has chimed in most of the areas have been covered.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx

Perhaps I ought have clarified the perspectives on which my post was based:

Kindness is an undeserved gratuity delivered from the altruism and largesse of the viewer of the image, it is, implicitly, un-earned by the photographer.

Deserved praise is earned by the photographer, the maker of the image recognized as laudable.

Dave in SD

R.G. Loc: Scotland

....and sometimes when we're shooting we just get lucky....

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

...and when the photographer claims to be lucky, I like to point out that it is necessary/laudable to be "the prepared photographer" at the moment Lady Luck appears!

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

Very true Dave, almost every picture taken in situations where all of the various parameters aren't under the photographers control are dependant on an amount of luck. I rely heavily on it but like to call it an ability to recognise a developing opportunity ;)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

You're right. I have indeed noticed that it does help to have a camera with you at the time :) .

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Regardless of whatever luck is involved in the capture of an image, the next step is virtually never luck.

Someone has to pick that one image out of the dozen, or the hundreds or even thousands of potential images, and decide it is worth editing and/or using in some way.

Selecting the right image is a skill. Luck is rarely a part of it.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

One of the learned elders on this forum once made a statement that I have used often since: "Good luck is a handy tool."

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

OK. I don't understand what you mean by this: "An image is divided into compositional parts as symbols, much the same as a written paragraph has sentences and words that are symbols. The order they are in, which symbols are more dominant and which are subordinate in relation to the symbol that is the subject as well as to each other, can all be described in scientific terms and by the technologies that are used to order them."

Jerry Banse Loc: Eastern Illinois

I have always told new photographers - "If you think it is a good picture, then it is indeed a good picture" With that said, there is still the question, "Can this photo win a competition?" I feel this forum is able to answer both questions. A week or so back, I submitted a photo asking if it were Bokeh. I don't feel I got an answer. Instead, I felt the forum went the direction of competing with each other about their own feelings/views. Offering alternate views is always positive. Conflicts between critics over a topic leads to confusion.
thx
Jerry
"Your perception is reality to you!"

Nightski

You asked a question here and expected that everyone would agree? :lol:

Jerry Banse Loc: Eastern Illinois

Absolutely not. But the purpose of the forum is to help answer questions of the photographer. I just felt that the comments were between the critics instead of being focused on the photograph - sorry for any offense.