You have already gotten a lot of good comments here. I think the objective vs. subjective part is the key, and it ties into a lot of what @Igor_Doncov discussed in his comments. The objective comments are generally the technical things (clone this, crop that, fix exposure). These are the easiest things to comment on, which is why they comprise the majority of things mentioned in critiques at NPN. And images from less experienced photographers usually need more of those type of comments because they havenât fully learned how to self identify these problems.
Critiquing subjective things is much harder for the person doing the commenting to do, which is why we have so few of these type of comments here at NPN. Iâm not talking about White Balance (which is subjective and a creative choice), but rather does the sum total of the image have high impact, or to evoke an emotional response in the viewer. Does it transcend documentary recording and instead have artistic merit. Itâs hard to define these things in words, but many experienced photographers generally know it when they see it. And if you are less experienced, you donât always know what you donât know. As Igor said pay attention to the comments of people here whose images you admire. They are going to be on point for what you want to accomplish. But recognize that not all people here at NPN shoot for the same reasons, and their comments vary accordingly. But when 3 or 4 experienced shooters all give you the same comment, itâs usually a sign to pay attention to it, even if you disagree, otherwise you risk getting stuck at the plateau of mediocrity Igor mentioned
It depends if âyour way still worksâ for a specific purpose /objective. If the goal for your photography is to get more likes at Instagram, all you need is the crop/clone/ objective comments, and you may not even need a lot of those given who the casual viewer is on social media. If your goal is to sell prints, well that involves a totally different type of viewer/customer, for example high saturation, tripod hole location images might sell well to certain customers, but they might not be received well here at NPN. For the NPN landscape critique forum, there are many folks whose goal is to create artistic/creative images for their own satisfaction, thus we are yet another type of viewer, who has their own view of what works.
But Igor is right, the more you can think about what works not just technically, but more importantly, creatively, while you are in the field, the faster your work will improve. Many folks both shooting and critiquing images tend to get bogged down in the technical stuff. Often this is at the expense of thinking hard about the subjective stuff, before you trip the shutter. I just wish I had a dollar for every post where the photographer proudly discusses how they used focus stacking, exposure blending, etc. and then they forget the nuances of composition and light, and how those things affect the creative choices they should be making in the field. Focus stacking does not give an image an emotional impact, yet if you spend more time thinking about that in the field, the creative side can suffer. Itâs nearly impossible to significantly alter the subjective stuff in post processing, it needs to be an inherent and important part of your field work.
For example, in landscape photography, do you think about objects as subjects or as design elements? Many less experienced shooters look for subjects, and more experienced shooters look for design elements rather than subjects. Design elements (lines, shapes, shadows, contrast) go a lot further in making images more artistic than having a good subject does.
