How to Self Critique

Photo by Clément M. on Unsplash

Our ability to interpret our work in an independent and objective manner is essential for our "improvement". For me, photography is a hobby, one that does not require any income what so ever. Being a non-professional gives me a massive amount of freedom that I enjoy. Would I like to sell my work? Yes but not for the money, for the simple knowledge that someone likes my work enough to part with their hard earned money.  But do I need the money? No.  I am lucky and have a good paying job that keeps me in hypo and paper.

But I do have a desire to improve my craft. I want to become a better photographer than I was last year. I want to be a better printer than I was last year. I want to be better. The hardest part of this process is knowing what you did wrong...or how you are falling short of your own expectations.

Enter the self critique.  I have a very simple three step process.  Why three steps? Because I am an uncomplicated guy who likes things in three because it helps me remember things.

1. Impression. What does the image make me feel?  I will often ask my kids this questions and get odd looks. But that first impression, that emotional connection is critical for me and one of the hardest things to nail down. No amount of darkroom magic can make up for this shortfall. What is the subject? What is the message? What is the emotion? Is it a slap you in the face or a slow burn? 
2. Distractions. What is pulling the picture in the wrong direction?  I often times put the picture upside down and look for what draws my eye. I count the items that draw my attention and then look for the ones that are not pulling the viewer in the same direction. What is the composition and is it the strongest way to see that particular image. Here I will challenge myself to imagine different crops to see if I can make it more powerful.
3. Print. Does the print help or distract from the image? Here is where I look for differences in tone, contrast and detail. Do I have a deep black and a bright white? If I have a white that is as white as the paper, did I lose detail? Did my print dry darker than I expected and, in so doing, have I lost detail in the shadows. Is the contrast subtle or does it "cut" the viewer? This is about workmanship, quality and overall aesthetics. 

The Fail: No Impression
Here is an image I took a lifetime ago. I loved the dead tree in the water.  This was taken in Perth Australia while we lived there. 

My critique was ok I see a fascinating scene. A tree growing out of the water is cool. But it is flat. Everything is in focus and the angle of the shot is flat...straight on. A possible wonderful scene horribly captured.

I like the B&W conversion (this was digital) and the sky is very well handled. At the end though, the composition is off enough to kill the photo. 

The Near Miss: Distraction
Oh wow. Love the bold colors and patterns and love the color management on this one. I like the slight vignetting and its use here. 

I also like the idea. The feeling of being on a packed train is clear without being overwhelming. The prime subject, the lady and her patterned skirt is wonderful but you cut off her feet. Without her shoes this picture just does not work.

The Base Hit: Impression
Ok so here we have a wonderfully composed picture taken in York England. The three rowers certainly helps nail the compositional element which is very well framed by this wonderfully ancient bridge. The boring sky is unfortunate as the clouds are too close to the horizon to add to the image. It gets lost in everything else.

I like the color work, perhaps the blues are a bit too saturated but a small detail. The birds are a bit distracting especially the ones on the right. But overall a great capture but here, while technically well executed and overall acceptable display, the problem is that it is a postcard. Technically well executed but of little emotional value. The lack of a developed sky to balance the image is what kills this image. Not the photographer's fault but it is your problem. 

The Hit: All is Balanced
Let's walk through my three step system.  
Step 1: Impression. So here we have a dark print, this is giving a sense of the rainy, foggy weather that South England is known for. We have a sense of winter, cold and dark. A sense of aloneness. The bear trees, wet ground, foggy weather, dark tunnel and the leading lines of the fence gives this a wonderful balance.
Step 2: Distractions. Here we have a clean image. Nothing is pulling the viewer in a different direction. The tunnel effect (created by being in a tunnel :) ) focuses the viewer. The dark edges and brighter center pulls the viewer into the image. The emotive feeling aligns with the visuals. Nothing moving, nothing distracting. 
Step 3: Print. This is both a digital and film shot (I had both cameras with me) but this one is a digital version. The conversion is clean, the contrast fades as we move through the fog but is sharp through. The aperture was wide enough (f8 if memory serves) to give us a deep area of focus. Consider the blocks in the very center (remnants of a dock made from stone) is in focus but soft contrast due to the fog. The bare tree that helps frame the shot on the right side is clear and in focus but has some elements of the fog effect. The trees on the left have a deeper impact of the fog. All of this image is about depth. All the way to the foreground where we have the wet walkway and the fence and finally darkness. 

Overall this image works. It is emotive, well constructed and the subject was captured well. I am happy with the image. The one constructive argument I would made is that the foreground calls for something. A dog, a bike, an umbrella...something to make it whole but as it is it is a fine image and a good print.