Tag Archives: series

Kudos to Michael Frye for His Weekly Critique Series

Michael Frye just posted the second in his weekly series of photograph critiques. It is no surprise that he offers insightful and relevant commentary of the photos, but I want to especially note the nature of his critiques.

A lot of what passes for photo criticism on web forums and elsewhere is less than wonderful stuff. I see all too many that fall into a couple of predictable and not very helpful categories. On one hand I see the shallow and quite meaningless one-liner comments: “Great work!” and “Stunning photo!” and “It sings” and the like are, of course, positive – but they provide very little to the photographer than a momentary warm feeling… which quickly when one realizes that the lack of depth in the responses suggests that the photograph didn’t really engage the viewer. On the other hand we see plenty of examples of the “let me tell you why you suck” school of criticism: these often inform the photographer than he/she ignorantly violated some “rule” of photography and can sometimes degenerate into little more than lists of “everything I can find to dislike in your work.” A lot of this stuff comes from people who honestly think that this is what “criticism” is supposed to be, but some of it comes from folks who should know better.

Given the prevalence of poor public critiquing, I’m especially grateful to Michael for demonstrating the features of good criticism. Some things you’ll note in his series: He begins by finding and acknowledging the admirable and interesting in the work being critiqued; he avoids the “this is wrong” or “you shouldn’t do that” commentary; he shares his reaction to the image, letting the photographer know how and why he responded to it; when he has a different idea he offers the alternative to the original artist rather than insisting; he illustrates what he might do differently; and he concludes by looping back to the positive aspects of his observations.

I’ve never had the opportunity to observe Michael lead a workshop, but if the approach he uses in the online critiques is any indication, I’ll bet that there is a lot to be learned from him at his workshops.


G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” (Heyday Books) is available directly from him.

G Dan Mitchell: Blog | Bluesky | Mastodon | Substack Notes | Flickr | Email


All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others as indicated. Any use requires advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Photographer’ versus ‘Photoshopper’

Read enough online stuff about photography and you eventually begin to recognize certain “common knowledge” assumptions about photography that are frequently repeated, quoted, and stated as truths. Unfortunately, quite a few of them are, at best, personal opinions rather than facts, and a good number are just plain wrong. I have a couple of ideas for a series of posts on this blog, and I’ve felt that occasionally dealing with some of these myths and platitudes might be one such thread. So, here goes — a new series: “Photographic Myths and Platitudes.”

I’ve seen writers attempt to draw distinctions between “photographers” and “photoshoppers” – in fact I just saw another today. The underlying assumption seems to be that if you are really a “photographer” you’ll be able to do everything perfectly in-camera and won’t have to do anything in the “post-processing” stage, and that “photoshopping” is a form of non-photographic cheating or tweaking that only has the purpose of making a poor photograph less poor. Further, quite a few who hold this view attempt to build their case on photographic history, often suggesting that “Great Photographer X” fully and accurately “pre-visualized” the image in its finished form, carefully calculated composition and exposure in such a way that the final print would be inevitable, pressed the shutter release, and captured a perfect image that could not be improved in any way by further work.

Of course, with the exception of a few genres of and approaches to photography, this is generally nonsense both as history and as a practical description of how photography is done. Continue reading Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Photographer’ versus ‘Photoshopper’