I've participated in the Landscape Group’s critique circles for several years. Each circle comprises about ten members. A new round starts each month, and each member contributes an image for the others to evaluate.
The critiques on my photographs go way beyond the comments I get on social media and provide insight into how others view my work. But just as importantly, the discipline of carrying out monthly photography appraisals has changed how I describe photographs.
This led me to create a series of checkpoints that I refer to when appraising an image. I treat these checkpoints as heuristics — not rules. (Following rules can lead to formulaic photographs that might have impact but often lack an emotional connection to the subject.) It occurred to me that other Landscape Group members might be interested in using these checkpoints to evaluate their own images or those of other photographers.
I’ve grouped the checkpoints into three sections, representing three ‘layers’ to consider when appraising a photograph. These sections are skill, craft, and artistry. Skill involves technical excellence like proper control of lighting and shadows. Craft refers to good composition. And with artistry we're trying to establish if the photographer has a unique vision.
Skill
With this layer, we examine the photograph for technical flaws. A technically excellent image isn't necessarily a good photograph, but one with obvious technical flaws is rarely acceptable. Deciding if an image is technically flawed comes down to understanding the photographer's intent. Is it blurred because of poor camera technique, or because the photographer wants to create a particular mood and atmosphere? If you can't decide between poor technical execution and artistic intent, it's likely to be poor technical execution. Intent is never ambiguous.
Exposure
Is any area unintentionally overexposed or underexposed? Are there any blown highlights / blocked shadows? If these are unintentional, what could the photographer have done to prevent them?
Sharpness
Is the main subject in sharp focus? Is the point of focus appropriate for the photo (e.g. a lone tree)? Is there evidence of camera shake or over-enlargement of the image? If it is out of focus, is this intentional?
Example 1: This image shows grass moving in the wind in Eglinton Valley, New Zealand. Does the resulting image capture the effect of the wind? Or is it too abstract? Could the effect be mistaken for poor technical execution?
Depth of Field
Is the depth of field shallow or deep? Does it work in this shot, or should more (or less) of the photo be in focus? Does it enhance the subject or distract from it? If this is a detail shot, is the entire subject contained in the depth of field?
Lighting
Where is the light coming from in the photo? Is the light soft or harsh? Is the subject lit by natural or artificial light? Is the lighting appropriate for the subject? Are shadows placed intentionally or do they interfere with the subject?
Shutter Speed
If the photo includes subject movement (e.g. a waterfall, crashing waves, scudding clouds), is it handled appropriately (either frozen or given a sense of dynamism)?
Example 2: This image shows bobbing gondolas in the Bacino di San Marco. I intentionally used a long exposure of 60s to emphasise the movement in the gondolas. Do you think the subject movement has been handled appropriately? Is the resulting blur in the water and the clouds acceptable, or a distraction? Is the photo an original take on Venice, or is it cliché?
Colour / Tonal Range
Are the colours over saturated? Do they complement or clash? Is the white balance pleasing (not necessarily ‘correct’)? Is the tonal range realistic or is there evidence of excessive highlight or shadow recovery? In a B&W photo, is there a true black and a true white, with a large tonal range in between? Or is the photo too ‘grey’?
Optical and Digital Defects
Are there any sensor dust spots, evidence of chromatic aberration (purple fringing), an overall colour cast, or evidence of over -sharpening?
HDR / Panoramas / Focus stacks
Is the image free of artefacts? In an HDR image, check for edge halos and ghosting caused by moving objects. In a panorama, check for joining errors and perspective distortion. In a focus stack, check for blur around the edges of foreground objects, like rocks or plants.
Post-processing
Has the photo been edited (dodging and burning, cloning etc)? If not, should it have? If it has been, has it been done well? If the image is a composite made of different photos, does it look realistic? For example, does the perspective work and do the shadows make sense?
Print Presentation
What paper did the photographer use to print the photo? Does it complement the image? Does the mat support and enhance the image, or distract from it?
Craft
I'm using 'craft' as a catch-all for several guidelines on photographic composition. Good craft makes a photo visually engaging, encouraging viewers to explore the photograph and spend time with it.
Clear subject
Does the subject stand out? Is there one main subject? Is there clutter or distracting elements that divert attention from the subject? Are they any unintended overlaps or mergers?
Following or Breaking Rules
Is the main subject / horizon in the centre of the frame or on a third? Somewhere else? Does the chosen composition work?
Viewpoint
What strategies did the photographer use to convey a sense of space? Does the chosen viewpoint showcase the important features of the subject? Is there a sense of depth, with foreground, middle, and background? Would the point of view be improved by using a different focal length lens (wide angle v telephoto)? Was the vertical perspective (low, normal, high) chosen appropriately? Are foreground objects clear of the horizon (either below it or well above it)?
Framing
Is the best format used (vertical, horizontal, square, panorama)? Does the orientation of the frame complement the subject (e.g. a vertical frame tells the reader to read vertically)?
Edge Patrol
Look at the edges of the photo. Is there anything bright, high contrast or distracting that leads the viewer away from the subject or out of the photo? If so, should the photographer have cropped it out, cloned in something less distracting or composed the image differently?
Flow
Did the photographer use interesting features like repeating patterns, reflections, diagonal lines, and S-curves to draw the viewer into the image? Do leading lines ‘point’ to the main area of interest or make you want to look deeper into the photo?
Example 3: I took this image in Vareid, Lofoten. I chose a viewpoint to create flow from the foreground rocks to the mountain in the background. Is your eye drawn to the mountain, or elsewhere? Does the brooding sky complement or distract from the subject?
Energy
Is there movement in the photograph that creates a sense of dynamism, like waves crashing over rocks, clouds moving in the distance, grasses swaying in the foreground? Is the visual energy biased towards one side of the picture? When images contain a strong sense of movement (e.g. a bird in flight), viewers sometimes prefer the visual energy to point towards the right of the frame. Would flipping the picture improve the dynamism?
Balance
If you drew a vertical or horizontal line across the middle of the photo, would the important elements on one side have a counterbalance on the other? Is the horizon level and the verticals vertical? If the photo is out of balance or tilted, is it intentional or lazy composition?
Example 4: This was a roadside stop on New Zealand’s Highway 6. I saw this magical light appear and wanted to capture it. But there was no real foreground interest and I couldn’t get closer to the trees as they were on private land. I decided to include more sky in the image instead, convincing myself this would emphazise the epic mountain scenery. But has this unbalanced the image? Would the image work better if the fence was cloned out? Would it have been better to use an even longer lens (this was shot at 170mm) and focus on just part of the scene?
Breathing Room
Is the photo cropped too tightly, cutting off important parts of the scene? If so, is it intentional? Is there negative space in front of animals or people for the subject to move into? Or is there too much empty space? Should the crop have been tighter?
Artistry
Artistry is the third and arguably the most important layer. It allows us to hear the photographer’s unique voice and see their singular way of representing the world.
Intent
What is the image of and why has the photographer photographed it this way? Has the photographer presented the subject in the strongest and most effective way possible? If you had been given the task of photographing the same subject and conveying the same mood, what would you have done differently?
Emotion
How does the photo make you feel? Does it evoke joy, laughter, pathos, excitement, sadness, wonder or another intense emotion? Do you think this is what the photographer intended? Does the photo show understanding and empathy with the subject? If it makes you feel nothing, what could the photographer have done to add emotion?
Example 5: This image shows part of Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral. I was attracted to the geometric shapes in the composition and wanted to create a futuristic, sci-fi feeling in the final image. Do you get this feeling from the image, or do you have a different emotion? Is the motion blur in the walking pedestrian acceptable? Would the image work better if the subject was walking into (rather than out of) the frame?
Impact
Before critiquing the image’s technical shortcomings, ask if the content, the moment, the mood or the meaning of the picture transcends those faults. Does the photo grab your attention and hold it? Is it interesting and/or creative? Is it memorable? What has the author done to go beyond a mere representation of the scene? Or is it simply a record shot?
Message
Good photographs often have a message or story embedded in the frame. What do you think the photographer is trying to say with this image? How would you express that in words? Does the title reinforce the message and encourage a deeper look?
Sense of place and time
Does the photograph have atmosphere? Is the subject presented in a way that projects an interesting sense of place and time (e.g. a misty forest at dawn, a crowded city street at night)? Are there any objects or clothing in the image that suggest a particular era or time period?
Decisive Moment
Was the photo taken at the right time? Would it have been better taken shortly before or after? Would the subject look better at a different time of day (e.g. sunrise/sunset) or in another season (e.g. Autumn)?
Curiosity Gap
A photo is often more powerful when the viewer needs to do some work to complete the story or figure out what the image is showing. Does it leave something to the imagination? Is there an ‘Easter Egg’: something that isn’t the main subject, but captures your eye and ‘makes’ the photo?
Example 6: This drone image from Pembrokeshire shows a farmer planting potatoes. I wanted to create an image that takes a few moments for the viewer to understand. Is the image a success? Is it balanced? Is there sufficient breathing room for the tractor to move into? Should the birds on the right-hand side be cloned out?
Originality
Is the photo a fresh and original view of the subject matter? Is it an attempt to try something different (even if it’s not perfect)? Can you detect the photographer’s unique voice? Or is it a cliché, a copy of another photographer’s style, composition or approach? Is a special effect being used to rescue a poor picture?
Style
Does the photo have a distinctive style? How would you describe the style in words? Does it complement the subject matter, or is it just a gimmick, resulting in a superficial, slick, or emotionless image?
Keep your Biases at Bay
Set aside your personal preferences. If the image isn’t appealing to you, consider who might like it and why. Who would hang it on their wall? What positives would they see in the photo?
Closing remarks
This structured approach to appraising photographs has helped me in a couple of ways. The first and most obvious is that it helps me enjoy the work of other photographers and articulate why I like an image.
But second, this approach helps me when I'm out shooting. By internalising these checkpoints, I'm able to critique the image on the back of my camera and fix any problems in the field. This means I get home with more 'keepers' and need to spend less time fixing problems in post-production.
I hope you find the checkpoints useful too.
And if you like the idea of developing your own skill, why not join an RPS Landscape critique circle? For more details, email me at landscapecircle@rps.org or visit https://rps.org/groups/landscape/what-we-do/circles-page/
All images © David Travis