I believe I noted earlier that Michael Frye has a new blog and was going to being a weekly photo critique, using a photograph selected from those offered by photographers who follow his blog. He has now posted the first critique in the series, using a wonderful photograph from Tim Parkin. (I was already following and enjoying Tim’s blog.) I won’t spoil the fun by sharing Michael’s critique here, but I’d like to offer a few comments:

Michael knows how to critique. In addition to know his photography – no surprise there – his commentary on Tim’s photograph could serve as a model for anyone who wants to offer effective criticism. (I won’t go into the details, but this is something I happen to know a bit about.) Michael describes what works in the photograph, primarily in the context of what he sees in it. The he shares observations about aspects that Tim might not have known about, offering some ideas about alternatives where appropriate.

In the course of the critique, Michael makes some (obvious to some, not so obvious to many others) points about the nature of landscape photograph. For example, there is a lot to think about in this paragraph:

Of course being in the right place at the right time is a big part of landscape photography. While luck is obviously a factor, luck favors effort, persistence, anticipation, and a willingness to fail. You have to drag your camera out when the chances of success are small. Most of the time you’ll be disappointed, but eventually you’ll get lucky. The ability to anticipate good light and weather conditions comes from experience, local knowledge, and a little intuition. Most photographers have more success making repeated trips to a local park, getting to know the place intimately, then traveling to some exotic, unfamiliar location.

Speaking for myself, it is always fascinating to see what other may see in your own work. I’ll readily admit that I’m incapable of regarding my own photographs in the same way that others do. (Occasionally, perhaps when going back to an image I haven’t looked at for a while,  I think I may get close.) For me the images are wrapped up in all sorts of context that other viewers cannot possibly have – the experience of the time and place in which the photograph was made, knowledge of other attempts to do the same image, perhaps a lot of time “working” the image in post. In this case, I can put myself in Tim’s shoes and imagine what he may have learned to see in his own photograph through this critique.

Good stuff, and I recommend that you follow the link and give it a read.