This article will go into some detail about how you can analyze a photo. Primarily it's meant to be a guide to people what they can consider when giving critique. But also important aspect is that it can teach you to analyze your own photos better and this way improve your skills also without critique coming from outside. There are quite a few of this kind of guides here but this is meant to be more thorough than at least anything I have read before.

By being able to analyze photos can help you to learn to analyze your own photos. This way you can easily figure out things to improve for your next photos and also perhaps remember few things while photographing. But you can also learn to give critique on other photos. In the long run, you also will recieve constructive critique if you just spread it around. This is again quite long article, but probably worth of reading.

Personally I always try to give constructive critique on photos if I see a photo where I have something to say (except the "critique not wanted" photos, I don't think these deserve any kind of comments). This way I hope I can make my own little part to change the athmosphere in dA towards the situation where people actually try to give constructive critique as default. And also I hope that someone sometimes return the favor and helps me to improve. I won't go into more details, but I think (like many other) that constructive critique is really important part in improving your skills.

I know that there are several similar news posts here, but at least the ones I've seen aren't as thorough as this (though naturally this can't either drill too deeply into matter either since there are several books written in any of the topics covered here). So with this article, I'm trying to give a bit more in-depth view with the different areas you could analyze with photos. Actually there are two benefits from reading this article: first on all (naturally) you'll learn to analyze photos by other people. But also you can learn to analyze your own photos and actually utilize that skill when also photographing.

I have divided this article into two main categories: first part is a bit easier and discusses about technical aspect of the photo. Second part is about the artistic aspect and might be a bit more abstract. But first before I'll go into listing those things, I'll tell you an example structure of a comment containing constructive critique. You might also view this from this angle: a good photo is good in every way. It has interesting subject that is photographed right (artistic side) and is technically good (technical side).

When viewing images, your own opinions might differ from the opinions of the artist. But personally I always thing that it's worth of hearing the other point-of-view too. I might have taken that specific thing into account or not while photographing or viewing the photo after that. If I have, then there's no harm done (and I can say that "thanks for your opinion but I prefer it this way") and if I haven't, then I have learned something new and improved as an artist.

Also I'm expecting that you know at least the basics of photography. If not, you might not understand everything I've written here. You might try starting from few guides I've gathered into other news post: [link] And again, I'm by no means experienced or good photographer. These things are just something I've found are useful and if I'm missing something here, go ahead and say it in the comment or note me. You're allowed to disagree and encouraged to speak up if you do disagree. I don't bite (or if I do, I'm gentle... though that's completely another story).

Example of the structure of message containing constructive critique

First of all I'll start with general impression of the photo. I'll say clearly if I liked it, thought it was magnificent or if it was nice. I usually won't say that "this photo was horrible" etc, just say nothing if I really don't like it. It wont help anyone and most likely it will just hurt the person who took the photo. Most often in situations where the photo isn't good, this person is a beginner who might like this particular photo. And it also might be quite good for someone at that level. Only exception for this would be when you're giving critique on person whos work you're familiar with. Then I think it's useful to say that the particular photo isn't up to his/her normal level (at least I would like to hear this).

Even though critique is important, we all enjoy hearing good things. So I usually try to start from what I like in that particular photo. This will soften the critique, so if the person isn't really expecting critique, more likely he/she will react to it more favorable and won't go into defensive mode right away. So just a bit of sugarcoating. Also it's good to hear what has worked with the particular image so he/she will know that those things work and can be used again.

Then I'll go into more details of what could be improved with the image. I think consistency is important here. Don't jump between technical and artistic stuff, but first try to cover other and then other (naturally these things might go hand-in-hand sometimes). Always say what you think could be improved (again, no need to be blunt; say something like "In my personal opinion it might be nicer like this...", if the person might learn anything from the critique he/she will pick it up from that) and then why and how it could be improved. Usually it's a bit pointless to say that "this didn't work" but not telling at least why you feel like it. If you really can't warp your mind around it, then tell it, but don't leave it to just pointing out something that didn't work for you.

Finally you can point out most important things or again say something positive. I usually try to end up critique with just to lighten it up a bit.

Technical aspects to analyze

I think this is a bit easier part with analyzing the image. It's more something you can learn by reading. Sometimes these things are almost like rules. Also something that might be really self-evident for you might actually be something really interesting and new for a beginner and lead that person into right direction. So pointing these things out won't hurt anyone (or at least it shouldn't but naturally there are arrogant know-it-all people, just ignore them).

It might be that this person did the certain thing on purpose, but if he/she doesn't state it in the comments, perhaps that person doesn't know about it or didn't notice it. Usually I start by checking the exif-information (metadata containing several critical information, dA shows few important things from this information if it's left into image file). Though naturally if I know this person is advanced enough, I don't spend too much time with this (but then again, I for example leave the ISO sometimes to too high after using it and not noticing it).

Also remember that these things are not goals, they're not absolute things that should be sought after. The goal is the final image but they will help you when you're reading the image.

Aperture

Quite often I see landscapes taken with too high aperture so that depth-of-field isn't wide enough and foreground is out-of-focus. Perhaps that scene needed that high aperture since there wasn't enough light and that person didn't have tripod handy, but then again, perhaps that person didn't even know how aperture affects into image and would benefit from that information. Though it's worth noting that aperture is too high for landscape if the whole scene is in focus. So just don't look the information, but also the image.

ISO speed

It's usually worth checking the ISO speed. Quite often beginners might be using higher ISO since they don't know what effect it has. Also studio shoots, for example, are best done with tripod and base ISO, so pointing that out won't hurt anyone. Sometimes people simply just forget to change the ISO... pointing this out might help him/her to remember it next time.

Naturally there might be some other reason for high ISO. I have few photos where I wanted to get the noise to be visible so sometimes the high ISO might be there on purpose.

Then there's the question whether you should point out the higher ISO if there really isn't noise visible (lets say nicely lit image with ISO200). Personally I feel that it won't hurt anyone. At least I want the best possible image quality and that's what the base ISO is for (well, the base ISO in my camera actually is 200, so don't comment if I use it instead of 100 ).

Focal length

A bit artistic side here too, but is the focal length too long or short? Lets take a traditional head-and-shoulders portrait as an example. Perhaps the person is shooting it with 30mm focal length (with SLR in this case)? But we all know (well, at least part of us) that this forces you to get too close to the person and gives some perspective distortions that really aren't that flattering (but again, these things are not written in stone... I have one portrait taken with 20mm lens just to get that effect).

Shutter speed

This thing goes hand-in-hand with the previous parts. From just technical point-of-view, it gives you something where you can compare ISO, aperture and focal length. For example, a person shooting 50mm lens (with crop sensor, that would mean sharp hand held shots with around 1/75s...that would translate into 1/80s), using ISO400 and 1/500s shutter speed. Perhaps here would be wise to lower the ISO to 100 and lower the shutter speed to 1/125 (unless there's fast moving subjects).

Again, this is a mistake beginners do quite often, so pointing these out helps them to improve their skills. But then again, there might be reason for high shutter speed (stopping movement), so think about it.

Sharpness

Good photo is good in every area. So if the image is lacking sharpness so that it disturbs you, mention it it. Perhaps you could find the reason for this from shutter speed? Or perhaps it's just out-of-focus, but I feel that it's still worth mentioning.

Artistic side to analyze

Here you have a bit more difficult and abstract things. There are books written on topics that you can find under one title here, so naturally these things are not that thorough. I'll just go through few important points for you to consider. Most of the time I don't give answers since there are no general right answers. I'll just give you questions here you might want to ask from yourself while viewing the image.

Subject, concept and mood

First thing you can always ask is that is the subject interesting enough to photograph and publish it in art gallery. Is it really a well-thought photo of interesting subject or a random snapshot of a random object?

One thing to consider is that does the photo try to portray any concept? If it does, how good job it does in it? Quite often I see random snapshot in the gallery for conceptual photography. In these cases, the concept doesn't arise from the image and touch the viewer. There even might be some concept behind the image, but if the viewer can't see the concept, then usually the photographer has failed.

Also sometimes the concept might be clear but the technical execution of the image is lacking. In these cases the idea might be good but the general mood of the photograph doesn't portray or support the idea behind the image. For example, the photo might be about love, but the lighting is dull and flat and not really bring out any emotions that would help portraying the original concept (though again, there might be exceptions, like where the photographer wants to get a clinical look in the image).

Background, surroundings and the overall scene

One thing that can easily disturb the image is bad choice of background. Quite common mistake is to use too detailed background with image where you want the subject stand out. Naturally a narrow DoF might help here, but more about that later. In general, you want the background to be something that supports the overall image but doesn't get the viewers attention. Is the background too busy? Is it prober for the mood of the image?

Lets take the word love as an example here yet again (don't draw any conclusions about me from it, it's just really easy example and used quite often with conceptual photography ). One quite common photo is where the normal playing cards form the word "love" when placed upside down. But quite often you'll see this done in normal table without any thought into the settings. That's not usually best choice for this theme.

Composition and placement of the objects / posing the model

Composition is quite difficult subject to cover (currently I'm reading a book that's mostly about this), but I'll give you few examples that you might consider while analyzing an image.

One quite common mistake is to place the subject in the middle of the frame since the AF spot is there (sometimes I've seen even horizontal photos of people where the head is exactly in the center of the frame). So is there any reason to place the subject in the middle of the frame (like emphasize symmetry) or would it be better using the rule of thirds for example?

You should also broaden your view about the subject. Anything that is "heavy" enough element in the image (that clearly draws viewers attention) could be viewed as a subject. Perhaps it's the sun in sunset photo or some other strong enough element in landscape. Or perhaps there's a sign that contains writing (it contains information so usually people read it automatically). So placement of these subjects should be considered carefully.

Then there's also the balance in image. Should there be balance or some tension in the image? How does it go along with the mood the photo tries to convey? For example if all the heavy elements are on one side of the image, usually it's not that well balanced. Or if the one subject (like person in portrait) is facing "outside" of the image (for example is on right side of the image and facing to right), that usually creates more tension than more traditional view (for example the person is on right side of the frame and facing left, towards the photo).

One quite common mistake with sunset photos is that the ground is under exposed (usually black) and the sky is correctly exposed. In this case you might want to thing if the horizon is in correct spot. This is question for landscapes and usually rule of thirds applies quite nicely here too. Is there enough detail in the sky or land so that it should occupy the are of the frame it does? In the sunset example the answer would be "no", since there is no details in the ground that contribute to the photo. Perhaps in this case the person should crop the photo to panoramic aspect ratio?

What about with portraits? Well, I won't go into details that how you should pose your model here. If you're interested, you might want to read more from this site: [link] There's information about the differences between men and women etc. But think again about the general mood if the image; should it be calm (traditional positioning) or more dynamic? Is the model comfortable or looks clearly uncomfortable in front of the camera (personally I'm not good enough with this and since I'm not using experienced models, it shows in the image)?

Exposure

Exposure is overlapping clearly between the technical side and artistic side (well, what isn't). The exposure can be wrong in the sense that the image is under or over exposed by accident. That's good to mention while commenting (for example if there's badly burned out areas) since sometimes the person might not even thought about the fact that he/she can control the exposure somehow.

Then there's the artistic side of the image. Lets take again as example the concept "love". Basically "correctly" exposed (according to cameras meter) image of this concept might look rather clinical and not really work with the mood again. Perhaps that's not the best way to convey the feeling you want to. So "correctly" exposed image might not always be the best option for the image. Dimly lit photo might go well with the concept.

Lighting

Lighting goes hand-to-hand with exposure, but here I'll cover different types of things that person should keep in mind about the lighting (outside of the camera) versus exposure (something you'll control with camera).

First of all you could consider if the artificial lighting possibly used would be good. Common mistake with still-life and portrait is that you'll just shoot with what light you have in the room. This usually creates a dull lighting that doesn't bring the subject out. So perhaps the person could have used some kind of lighting there. Quite often this kind type approach also leads to use of high ISO or too long shutter speed since there isn't enough light available.

And what about lighting outside? Perhaps the image was taken exactly at midday and the lighting is really harsh and flat. Would there be better time of day, time of year or weather to take that particular photo?

Depth-of-field and bokeh

This thing goes hand-in-hand with aperture. Should the depth-of-field be shallow or wide? If you only have one subject in the image, you most likely want it to stand out and want to get narrow DoF to get blurred background. If you don't, there's a chance that the subject actually "drowns" into background, drawing viewers attention off the subject. Or perhaps the DoF is too narrow? There are important areas out-of-focus?

Bokeh means the artistic quality of the out-of-focus areas in the images and naturally is subjective. But in general, for example a compact camera can't produce that "creamy" bokeh. Personally I quite often mention about this if I see that the photo was taken with compact camera. It's usually nice information for the person since not everyone knows how they can actually get that blurred background.

Colors

This is already quite abstract area. But perhaps there's few simple things you can think of.

First of all you can think of the colors in general in the image. Does the different colors work together? Or should they? You can again create peaceful scene with right colors but also you can bring some dynamics into image with them. Also different colors symbolize different things. So in this sense, you can also thing if the colors support the mood of the image.

But you can also think about the saturation. Is the image saturated enough? Quite often, for example, I've seen nice sunset images that could be clearly more striking with a bit more saturation. Or perhaps the image is over saturated? This is the case quite often especially with HDR images.

Few other things worth of noticing

If you have time, it might be worth if checking the persons gallery before giving cricique. Sometimes this might give you better idea of the skills of that person, so you can explain everything on the right level. But naturally some constructive critique is better than nothing, if you don't want to spend time checking that gallery.

Also sometimes you might get some nasty responses from people. You just have to learn to not to care about it. Those people are immature idiots and really should show the images only to their grandparents who praise them no matter what. Once I gave some tips to person who had taken really average waterscape snapshot and the reply was something like "I like this photo and you don't ruin it for me". I just didn't know whether to laugh or cry. But most of the time people appreciate good constructive critique. But again, now I'm talking about good constructive critique, not just senseless bashing of the photo.


Here you have it, few basic tips that might help you to analyze photos better than before. At least these things are something I quite often try to analyze while giving constructive critique.

Also check my older articles if you haven't already:
[link] Photography as a Hobby: How to Start Improving
[link] Guide to Better Sunset Photos
[link] Photography learning resources on Internet