Paralysis by Analysis

As someone who spends a fair amount of time on various photographer forums, I've noticed that, at times, images are overly critiqued by other shooters. I've never been one to endorse the simple Attaboy! critique or the That sucks! comment but, conversely, I think images can be over-analyzed and this can lead to artistic paralysis.

Sure, the Devil is in the details. Of that I am certain. But there's details and there's details and, frankly, some details are barely worth mentioning if at all. Or, they fall into subjective areas that are so hyper-critical (and a matter of personal taste) they serve no constructive purpose. Instead, they sometimes cause the photographer to over-analyze his or her own work to the point where the analysis itself becomes counter-productive to growth.

Back in the days when I was a corporate guy, I worked for a Fortune 200 company that, on and off, tried to be something of a Rennaisance corporation in terms of employee relations. ("On" when business was good, "Off" when it wasn't.) One of the phrases officially endorsed by top-level management (and largely ignored by middle management) was "Catch someone doing something right."

I think this catch-phrase is suitable for critiquing others' photography as well as one's own. Sometimes, far too much time is spent on finding something wrong in an image. Doing so can counter growth as much as the simple Attaboy! does nothing to enhance it or to tell the shooter what it is that "works" in an image. If you look hard enough, you'll certainly discover flaws in any image... even mine! (Hehehe... Just kidding.)

One forum I routinely visit used to have a rule that said anyone providing critique must also post an image (of their own) with that critique. I never understood that rule as it seemed to say that opinions were only valid coming from people who also pursue the same kind of work, whether professionally or as an avocation.

Photography, like most artistic endeavors, shouldn't merely be judged by its peers since it is largely intended for non-peer viewers. When it comes to art, everyone's opinion is valid as art's impact is in the eye's of the beholder and the vast majority of those beholders are probably not going to be artists themselves. Try writing and publishing a novel and expect its success to be based merely on the critical responses of other fiction writers. See where that gets you, commercially speaking.

Personally, I think the best photo critiques include both what someone likes and doesn't like about an image or, in the case of images that "Wow!" the viewer, a few words on why it does so. Critics shouldn't be looking too hard to find something trivial wrong with an image when, in fact, they like the image. On the other side of the coin, I think critics should look to find something right in an image even when, for the most part, they believe the image has serious problems. Both of my opinions in these matters are designed to facilitate someone's growth and not throw them into a constant state of self-doubt and, I'll readily admit, I don't always practice what I preach.

The gratuitious eye candy featured in this post is Aveena. Captured with Canon 5D, 85mm prime, ISO 100, f/5.6 @ 125th. MUA Terese Heddon. Assistant Cippy.