> The difficulty with an open forum gallery is of course - how to know where > to begin to critique some pictures. The preponderance of criticism here > evaluates illustrative formal qualities rather than description and > interpretation. This isn't so bad if the critic explains how the > photographer used (or could have used) certain formal elements to express > an idea rather than referencing some rule.
Alan
Discussing interpretation - yes, maybe we should go that way. With a diverse gallery: some record, some art, some technical, some experimental, some street .... the common ground is the structural elements. Maybe that is what drives it that way.
How do you see handling the differences?
Another aspect of the reviews I also think might be missing / easily addable is "what could this photo be used for?". Beyond the picture, what is the product.
Is it a magazine cover, a calendar, a fine-art print? If for magazines, where is the space for the headline, text, etc.
Probably the reason that isn't done is the people best qualified to do that are not the ones with the time / inclination to do the reviews.
It is a thought: maybe someone will take up the challenge, that self-serving bastard Vlad the Impala maybe?
Bob
Bob,
I agree with all this - it's a lot of work to do a review and sticking to a few commonalities is about the only way. I think submitters want some advice about basic formal or technical issues and should get that. The idea of discussing end-use is great. i.e. part of a series, decorative, fetish object... Rather than doing the whole list I like to comment on just the pictures that got to me somehow.
The brave ones who are determined to try their hand at reviewing should be applauded. I wish everyone could read Terry Barrett's book "Criticizing Photographs." Maybe I can find some brief quotes to pass along
Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us
