Edit Template

How to Critique a Photo

Shop

Edit Template

Everyone may think of themselves as a competent art critic but few actually are.  Art critics are well studied in the various fields of art which they critique.  They are often artists themselves.  Being an artist allows critics certain insights into how a piece of art was created and how it could be improved.  Then, they can more accurately critique a photo or other form of art.

Cramer Imaging's nature photograph of a silky waterfall in the snow during winter in Idaho Falls, IdahoIf you would like to learn more about how to properly critique art like an art critic, then that’s a little of what we’re talking about today.  Since I’m a photographer, I’ll share how to properly critique a photo with you.

Remember art is a highly subjective field which is open to broad interpretation.  Photography is just one subset of that field.  Not all art is created for the purpose of being pretty.  With that in mind, here are some major points to properly critique a photo.

Also, fair warning, this is a very long and detailed post.  Be prepared.  I give you a lot of information before the end.

Was There Artistic Intent?

While this might not be the first thing which springs to your mind when you go to critique a photo, it should be.  This single question is the entire basis upon whether or not you judge it on the merits of being a snapshot or on the merits of being a piece of art.

Cramer Imaging's quality landscape photograph of Upper Mesa Falls for sale in the Grand Teton Council annual holiday auction
Here is a photo where I had no artistic intent in mind while creating it. Judge it based on its merits as a snapshot not a piece of art.

It may not be obvious at first whether or not the photographer intended the photo to be art.  You may have to do some staring at it for a while to figure that out for yourself.  Remember: don’t worry about whether or not the artistic intent was successful just yet.  All you need to do is determine whether or not it was present when the photograph was created.

Photograph of pretty landscape scenery in autumn which was not photogenic
Here is a photo where I did have artistic intent. You would judge it based on artistic merit despite the fact that it was an obvious failure in that department.

If you deem that the photographer intended the photo to be artistic, then you should strongly consider the next several points when critiquing the photo in front of you as you are now critiquing it as a piece of art.

Cramer Imaging's fine art landscape photograph of wind turbines on hill in golden light of sunset just after winter snow storm
This photo would also be judged as a piece of art. It’s obviously more successful than the previous landscape photo. How successful is up to you to decide.

What is the Color Like?

This point is probably the first thing that you noticed about the photo: its color.  In fact, the photo’s color could even be the reason you found yourself drawn to take a further look at it to begin with.  You should easily be able to tell if this photo is in color or in a monochromatic color scheme such as black and white.

Cramer Imaging's professional quality landscape and nature photograph of Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah at Sunset Point
This photo is obviously bold and bright with color.

Color Depth

Now, to properly critique a photo, it’s time to look a little deeper than that at the color in the image before you.  Take a look at the color saturation.  Does it feel natural to the subject?  Similarly, do skin tones feel properly colored or do they seem off?  Could the photographer have intended skin tones to be off?  If so, it should be readily apparent.  If not, then there’s something to think about.

family of five
Skin tones need to look natural in most instances or the person/people depicted look like there’s something wrong with them.

Highlights and Shadows

Take a look at the brightest and darkest parts of the photo.  Do you see details there or does it feel like a solid mass of black, white, or other similar color?  A good photographer knows how to control the highlights and shadows, the areas you were just looking at, and keep details from being lost there.

Cramer Imaging's professional quality landscape photograph of Upper Mesa Falls on the Snake River near Harriman State Park, Idaho
This photo is a great example of a photograph where you can check for details in the highlights (waterfall) and shadows (cliff-side on the left).

HDR Issues

Another point to consider is whether or not the photographer has used HDR (high dynamic range) on the photo.  HDR is a tool like many other tools.  Others abused in the past.  It’s designed to bring back details in places too bright or too dark for the camera to capture so that the photo may appear that much closer to what your eye can see.

Cramer Imaging's professional quality landscape photograph of red rock formations and dramatic sky in Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah
This photo could be considered processed with HDR. While I didn’t stack layers to get the color range, I did bring the highlights and shadows way back to make this image look this amazing.

If you look at a photo and feel that the colors there are a bit too monotone and flat, there’s a good chance it’s been poorly HDRed.  If you have trouble finding areas of highlight or shadow, if the colors feel a bit radioactive to you, then the photographer “juiced up” the photo too much.  This craze calmed down in years past so you aren’t quite as likely to run into it now but there’s still the chance.

Framed landscape photo which has overused the HDR technique
This landscape photo, not taken by me, demonstrates what can happen when the HDR technique is overdone.

What Kind of Composition Does the Photo Have?

Good composition is one of the basic elements of all good art, photography included.  In order to critique a photo, take a good hard look at the composition of the photo.  There are several different compositions it could follow.  For instance, does it follow the rule of thirds?  How about the golden mean?  Perhaps it displays a much more simplistic composition.  Could there be some combination of the above?

Professional quality fine art photograph of an abstract black and white cloud by Cramer Imaging
Check out this example of the composition rule called simple or simplistic.
Graphic of the golden mean spiral overlayed on a flower photograph
Here is an example of the composition rule called the golden mean.
Graphic with rule of thirds overlayed on a fall sunset landscape photo in Zion National Park
Check out this example of the composition rule called the rule of thirds.
Cramer Imaging's professional quality nature photograph of solitary brown fall leaf sitting on field of white snow
Here is an example of a photo which could be said to use all three composition rules at the same time.

Whatever the photographer’s choice of composition, make sure you evaluate whether or not the photo in front of you was successful at achieving good composition.

How Does the Photo’s Overall Lighting Look?

This point somewhat ties into the color part previously discussed.  All photos, artistic or otherwise, are lit in some fashion.  You decide for yourself if the lighting was properly executed or if it wasn’t.

Cramer Imaging's quality landscape photograph of the American Falls Reservoir boat dock at sunrise in Idaho
For a lot of photography, not just landscapes, your light source will be the sun.

Is the photo properly exposed?  Do you find yourself thinking there’s too much light or not enough light?  Over exposure and under exposure can be issues which the photographer overlooked or may have deliberately chosen as an artistic element of the photo.

Cramer Imaging's landscape photograph of windmills or wind turbines in a field at sunset in Ririe, Idaho
Getting the right exposure can be difficult in certain kinds of lighting conditions. This is part of why flash units were developed.

As yourself some of the following questions.  What direction(s) is the light coming from?  Does it leave a great deal of shadow in the photo?  Are those shadows desirable (such as a big part of the photo’s composition)?  Is the light soft and diffuse or is it direct and harsh?  Is the light overall warm or cold?  Do you wish that the light was coming from a different direction?

Cramer Imaging's professional landscape photograph of a dramatic orange sunset with clouds in silhouette
Shadows, if done right, can actually add a great deal to the photo.

Similarly, is the subject properly lit?  Does the background overwhelm the subject with its lighting?  Does the available light flatter the subject matter or does it leave it in a terrible light?  Pardon the pun.  Depending upon the intent of the photo, the latter might be a more desirable choice.  Do take that into consideration when critiquing the lighting of the photo.

Landscape photograph of a Snake River inlet in Thousand Springs State Park near Hagerman, Idaho
This harsh light on this cliff-face really shows off just how harsh and rugged it is.

What is the Subject Matter?

Here’s another point which you’ve probably noticed in the first couple seconds of viewing the photo.  The subject matter depicted is the reason why the photo exists, that and the photographer needed to create something.  Without a subject, there is no photograph of any kind.

Cramer Imaging's professional quality nature photograph of an orange tulip flower against a green background
Here’s a photo with a quick and obvious subject.

So, when critiquing the subject matter of a photo, here’s some points to consider.  Is there a clear subject in the photo?  Can you tell what it is within a few seconds of looking at the photo or do you have to stare at it for a while to figure it out?

Cramer Imaging's professional quality fine art photograph of colored water and foam dripping in sheets in Idaho Falls, Bonneville, Idaho
With this photo, the subject might not be quite as obvious as with the tulip photo above.

What kind of subject is it?  Is it human, animal, plant, abstract, etc.?  Is there texture in the photo (wood grain, fluffy, smooth, shiny, etc.)?  Are there multiple subjects in the photo?  Do the subject(s) look natural or naturally positioned in the photo?  If not, why not?  On the other hand, might the photographer intend to show you the subject(s) unnaturally positioned?  Is the subject matter family-friendly?  If not, why not?

Cramer Imaging's quality landscape photograph of three cows in a picturesque pasture at sunset in Downey, Idaho
What does the positions of these three cows tell you about the photo they’re in?

To critique a photo, you must glean a lot of information about what the photograph is and why it exists from the subject matter depicted.  Pay close attention to what the photographer is telling you.

Is the Photo Sharp and Clear?

Here’s a point which you’ll probably think about at some point in your critique.  Is the photo sharp?  Is the subject matter in focus?  If it’s not, why?  On the other hand, could artistic blur be a creative choice on the part of the photographer?

Cramer Imaging's professional quality fine art photograph of yellow and green blurry Christmas lights
Here’s a photo I took which is showing off artistic blur as a deliberate choice.

If the photo is depicting people or animals, you must check and see if the subject’s/subjects’ eyes are in sharp focus.  If the eyes are not in complete focus, that is a serious fail on the part of the photographer.

Cramer Imaging's professional quality nature photograph of a female deer or doe head with blurred background in sepia in Rigby, Idaho
Eyes always must be in focus.

Do you find that the background is in focus but the foreground is not?  Did they over-sharpen their photo so now the edges look strange and there’s pixelization visible?  These are also serious failures of the photographer.

Cramer Imaging's professional quality nature animal photograph of a ladybug insect crawling on a wild sunflower
Getting everything in focus is especially difficult in macro photography.

Is there motion blur in the photo?  Is the photo trying to depict motion as part of the subject?  If not, that’s another fail.

Cramer Imaging's quality landscape photograph of Mackay Reservoir Lake at sunset in Idaho
Motion blur can take many forms including smoothing out turbulent water.

Are There Obvious Signs of  Post-Processing Visible?

I’ve seen it posted several places: “Good design is obvious.  Great design is invisible.”  The same holds true with post-processing.  Any photographer who seeks serious artistic recognition for his or her photography processes up his or her photos.  The “no filter” movement isn’t present in serious photography circles.

Cramer Imaging's quality landscape photograph of the Island Park Reservoir lake at sunset in Idaho
No photo comes out of the camera absolutely perfect and flawless.

The question becomes whether or not you can see signs of the photographer’s post-processing work.  Did they try to remove something and fail to get all of it?  Is a tiny portion (or several portions) of the photo’s coloring off for the area it’s part of?  Does the lighting or shadow of a part look off compared to the rest of the surrounding area?

Photo close-up showing lots of digital noise in the form of random discolored dots
Here is an example of what over-sharpening can look like up close. It’s an obvious sign of post-processing.

Is there an obvious darkening or lightening of the photo’s edges?  This is called vignetting and is often a deliberate choice to help you focus on the subject matter.  Is only part of the photo in color and part in a monochromatic color scheme?  This is also a deliberate artistic choice.

Cramer Imaging's professional quality nature black and white nature photograph of tall grass against sky
This photo is a great example of what vignetting is.

Here’s a final question you have to ask yourself.  Could obvious post-processing be an artistic choice of the photographer’s?  For some of these errors, that would be highly unusual but not unheard-of.  For others, you see them everyday in photography.

How is the Photo Presented?

This is another one of those points which should have been very obvious from the first few seconds of seeing the photo.  How is this photo, which you are critiquing, presented?

The Print Itself

For instance, do you find it displayed online or is it a print someplace?  Is it hanging on the wall or displayed on some other flat surface?  Do you find the photo printed in a book or calendar?  What kind of paper is the photo printed on?  Is it glossy, mat, metallic, textured, etc.?  Is it printed on on canvas, metal, acrylic, or wood?

Photograph of a framed and matted version of Cramer Imaging's Upper Mesa Falls photo near Island Park, Idaho
Many photos you might critique will be presented in the traditional manner of being printed, matted, and framed.

The Framing

Next, does the photo have a frame?  How big is the frame?  What kind of frame is it?  Does the frame do the photo justice?  Is it matted?  What color(s) is the mat?  Is it double matted?  How is the picture hole cut?  Is it rectangular, circular, or some other shape?  Does this mat do the photo justice?  Does the mat, frame, and photo work well as a combination or do you feel that something is off there?

Other Viewing Conditions

Photograph of Cramer Imaging's fine art photograph 'Fall Mini Leafy Waterfall' on the wall of a room with a desk and a fake plantFurthermore, is this photo properly lit for your viewing?  Do you need more light to see it properly or do you need to turn off some lights to darken things down?  Do you have a distraction-free background of a wall to view the photo with?  Also, do you find the photo displayed where you can comfortably view it at eye level or do you have to stoop/crane your neck to see the image?

Photos displayed online are almost always backlit by the screen but there are other considerations to think about here.  Do you have a distraction-free webpage background to view the photo with?  Is the photo available in a high enough resolution that you can see all the details without it pixelating?

Is there a watermark present in online or print form?  Does this watermark interfere with proper evaluation of the photo you are critiquing?

Cramer Imaging's black and white landscape photograph of Teewinot Mountain in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming
Observe that writing in the bottom right-hand corner of the image. That is a watermark. People often use watermarks as a form of copyright protection.

Presentation for critiquing is the icing on the cake.  It should enhance your ability to properly view and critique the photo without being distracting.  However, if something is distracting you, you will not be able to properly critique the photo for what it is.

What Would You Change to Make the Photo Better?

Here’s one of the most important parts of critiquing a photo: what would you do to make the photo better?  You’ve been staring at this photo for a while.  You’ve come to see many of the good points and the bad points it has to offer.  There’s a strong chance you’ve noticed what’s wrong with it in your opinion.  Now, what would you do with the photo to make it right?  This is what separates the critiques from the haters.

Cramer Imaging's professional quality landscape photograph of a farm field and equipment with colorful clouds in Rexburg, Madison, Idaho
An artist/photographer cannot improve without some feedback. Be constructive about the criticism you give.

Would you crop it a bit different to emphasize or de-emphasize something or to improve the composition?  Would you turn the photo into a monochrome color scheme (black and white or similar) or would you turn it back to full color?  How about pulling out a flash unit to get some different lighting in the photo?  Would you change subject matter positioning?  Would you change where the camera focused to get better sharpness and clarity someplace?  Might you alter how the photo was processed somehow?  Would you print the photo on different paper or use a different mat/frame to display it in?

Cramer Imaging's quality landscape photograph of the Palisades reservoir lake at twilight in Idaho
Your feedback may help the photographer notice something he or she missed.

These are all examples of how you would change something about the photo to make it better.  Use your list of “I wish the photographer had done ____ with this photo” that you’ve been generating through the last several points of critique.  What would you do with the photo in front of you to make it better?

Does the Photo Evoke Something in You?

The final point to properly critiquing a photo is to evaluate whether or not the photo in front of you evoked something in you.  This can be the easiest or most difficult part of the whole critique.  Overall, when you critique a photo, you evaluate whether or not the photographer succeeded in creating something artistic based on whether or not it art worked for you.  This is highly subjective and what works for you won’t work for the person standing next to you.

Cramer Imaging's quality landscape photograph of reflections in Lewis Lake in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming
You need not feel a strong emotion or connection to the photo you are seeing. It can be as simple as a sense of calm and peace.

To start with, did the photo create some emotion in you when you first saw it?  Does it create some emotion now?  Do you feel inspired to create something yourself?  Do you want to go visit the place depicted?  How about if you miss the person depicted?  Do you suddenly want to go help someone in need?  Do you feel anger and outrage at some injustice?  Are you afraid of something in the picture?  Do you feel disgust and revulsion at what you see?  These are all examples of evoking emotion which you might feel at seeing the photo you are critiquing.

Cramer Imaging's professional quality landscape photograph of the Teton mountains and a cabin at sunset during winter
One of the first people I showed this photo to wanted to buy that house upon seeing the photo. Evoking something was successful with him.

If you’ve been answering all the questions above in the semi-objective categories above, then you should have a pretty good idea of whether or not the photograph caused some kind of stir in you.  Above all, this is probably the most important part of how to critique a photo.

Conclusion

In conclusion, critiquing a photo as art is simply about determining if there was artistic intent to begin with and then determining whether or not that photo was successful at accomplishing it.  All the points you check from color and composition to presentation and emotional appeal are about determining whether or not the artistic intent succeeded.  This is how art critics go about critiquing a photo or other piece of art.

Now that you’ve learned how to properly critique a photo, we’d love to see some examples of photos you’ve found or taken yourself and critiqued.  Leave those down in the comments section below.  Furthermore, please remember: don’t violate someone else’s copyright while doing this.  Leave a hyperlink to the image if necessary.

This article contains one or more stock photos you can buy a license to. Shop our stock photo library.

Cramer Imaging Newsletter

Cramer Imaging's professional quality landscape panorama photograph of the sky and moon reflecting in Henry's Lake at dawn with blue and golden hours

Receive monthly updates in your inbox from us.

* indicates required
Newletters (Please Choose At Least 1)

Affiliate Links

Photograph of falling money on a table and Cramer Imaging's fine art landscape photo titled "San Diego Pier"

Receive discounts and special offers from vendors and products we use.

Edit Template
Edit Template