[shuttertalk]

Some good tips from a judge of a photography contest [via digg]
http://www.photocritic.org/2007/how-to-w...y-contest/

If there's one thing I picked up from the piece is that people are subjective, and what works well for one person may not work well for another. That said, it's definitely hard work entering, let alone winning a photo contest - kudos to those who have done so in the past...

[Irma]

Very interesting reading. This also works in certain point in the way we critique pictures...

Too much of our comments in others pictures have to do with our own experiences, culture, backgrounds.... and sometimes, and I say it because it happens to me, I don't see the picture taking into account the photographer point of view, idea, and his/her own interpretation of the topic. I think, if this is not done as I think it should be, it is not quite right... and how worng I am some times...

[matthew]

The article does make some good points, and his lessons ring true from my own experience with my club's competitions. And it is very subjective. I remember a friend of mine submitting a sell-seen and well-executed photograph, only to have it fall to one judges' inherent dislike for fisheye lenses.

For submitting images to my club, I learned what the judges like: good light, baby-smooth, everything in focus, and constructive use of colour. With that in mind I then submit the images that I like, even if it's outside of their usual envelope. Sometimes I get lucky, and sometimes they do surprise me. Incidentally, the judging changes among a small group of the senior members, and two of the three judges per competition are from other camera clubs.

On a more universal level, people do have certain tastes, styles, and favourite subjects. I know that I'd be hopeless judging a competition of landscapes, because I have little experience with them and don't know the subtleties of what it takes to make a good one. Try as I might, Ansel Adams just doesn't do it for me, even after seeing many of his prints in person. I know that other people feel the same way about architectural photography, which is something that I'm enthusiastic about.

As a viewer, it is easy to fall into a trap of wanting a photo to be something different. A lot of critiques seem to be missing the preface "I would have taken the photo like this:". It's much easier to discuss cropping and fill flash than it is to coach talent or nurture artistic vision. And, to be honest, it's rarely worth the effort from the person providing the feedback. Often all people want is "crop the left side", or simply an affirmation about how good they are. Once a month, I get together with three or four other photographers, and we do a slide show and discuss out pictures. It's a great way to touch base and see what other photographers are doing, but there's usually only one or two images that sparks a real discussion.

Somewhere along the line I picked up the idea "the best critique is to explain what you see".

I don't remember the source, but it's not my original thought. If I can explain my understanding of a photo, only then can the photographer judge the value of my opinions. Even if I can form an opinion, the photographer can still learn how her work is perceived; if this happens often enough, it's a lot like having an audience. Even if I keep it to myself, being able to explain what I see in another's work makes me a better viewer.

I don't critique many photos these days, and I don't post many, either.