Thought provoking post.

My first reaction is that the examples you have used here are dated. I'm not trying to be difficult, but contemporary photojournalism tends to be as much about photographic technique as it is about the subject. I'm not sure this was necessarily the case the the 60s and 70s.

The difference, I think, is that contemporary photography exists within an era of image saturation that is like nothing that has come before. Joe Average may find the term 'visual language' to be arty-farty crap, but his ability to read imagery is acute, even if mostly intuitive. Creators and judges of photography, therefore, need to be even more sophisticated in their execution and understanding.

Coupled with the fact that photos of important events can come from many sources – images of 9/11 are a good example – the Pulitzer winning photographer of the 21st century will not be the guy with an iPhone who happened to be in the middle of an historic event.

However, I'm not just being an argumentative arse.

I think your actual point is that the photographic community spend too much time focusing on the details rather than the broader picture. And in this spirit I couldn't agree more. Every time I venture into critique forums I get put off by the fact that mostly the focus of criticism is that lamppost in the corner, or the smudge of trees in the background.

I understand that an image can be looked at graphically, but that is only one way of looking. Photography has greater breadth and depth, and discounting an otherwise interesting moment because the layout within the photographic rectangle isn't 'perfect', can be….I don't know…superficial.

When I first started listening to Criag Tanner's daily critiques over at the Radiant Vista, I was put off by his use of the phrase as well. After hearing his defense of it one day I came to accept the use of the term. Certainly we live in an imperfect world, but when a photo is presented for critique, ostensibly the photographer wants suggestions for improving their work as a whole not just advice on how to improve that specific image. Use of the perfect world standard gives the reviewer some latitude to make suggestions that might not have been an option, but may help the photographer see ways to improve their images the next time they have a similar opportunity.

I'm loving the discussion here. You guys make some great points. I do believe that what I'm saying applies more to street photography and photojournalist than other types of photography. And I understand the use of the term as Craig Tanner defines it.

As I stated in the post, this something I am working through. I don't have it resolved in my mind yet. Maybe it's just the phrase is so overused nowadays. However, if I was a student and I had just made a photograph that I was proud of and someone who I consider is as a peer (I think this might be factor for me – who is doing the critique?) looked at the image and told me how I could have improved it by standing somewhere else or waiting a few seconds longer kind, just kind of chaps me. I think everyone needs to see what's lacking an image, a clean background, the lack of a finger or toe. But if the image communicates, and is expressive and effectively tells the story, then we need to give the student a hearty well done. I think Cathy make a great point, what are we focusing on? The minutia or the story?

I think we've skipped a step here by not asking what the purpose and context of the critique is. The “perfect world” scenario can be incredibly helpful or moronic, depending on why we're looking at the image critically in the first place. If what we're doing is asking, What can I do differently next time when a similar situation arises? then I think it's important to give serious consideration to every element that is included, or excluded, from the frame. If we “critique the image as it is” what do we have left if there's no way to say, Here's how it might have been made stronger. I use the “perfect world” as a disclaimer because I know that while I can make suggestions I was not there and am unaware of the constraints that actual reality imposes on the frame. Still, I think it's helpful and needn't detract from the image as it is. Another way of saying it might be, “All other considerations aside, this image might have been made stronger in the following ways even though at the time it might not have been possible for any number of reasons, it might be next time, so listen up.” But that takes too long to say.

David-your point is well made. I guess it's just the irritation of knowing we don't live in a perfect world, so why do we keep using that statement. Maybe it's just semantics. It irritates the heck out of me. Why compare to something that doesn't exist. If we want to say is “all considerations aside” then let's just say it. In a perfect world I'd be shooting with a DS MK1 but I don't.

I think it's semantics and in the big picture is it the words themselves that bother you or the growing desire to shoot – and look at – images that are more documentary in nature and therefore not as easily simplified with the “perfect world” critiques. You have to admit the nature of your work is changing and so the language with which you interact with that work will also change. For some of us the “perfect world” thing is less an issue than something else. But we've all got hot buttons. In a perfect world you'd let me use the phrase “in a perfect world.”

My short take on many critiques is rarely is the story or point of the image ever talked about. Minor imperfections that some believe are the 'rules' of good can be forgiven if the content has power. My first look is always does it make me feel something, then if it doesn't why not. Does anyone ever critique the subject of the image. To often, all most critique and the rules is doing is putting 'fancy' on boring. Technically good and it follows all that is accepted as good but why did you bother making that image?

This probably isn't as clear as it should be for a public forum but some of you will get the point. Good subject and thought on this Matt. I often wonder if people stare through a viewfinder so much they don't really see anymore they just look. With out something to say it doesn't matter how 'good' it is. Following the critique/rules for any of the images above I don't believe would have added a noticeable difference to any of the images you used for the post. (Key word: noticeable).

Some great points here and if I can chip in again….

The last couple of points (Marcus & David) hit home with me because like Marcus says, I too really hate it when people start pointing out minute things that they consider to be wrong with an image. Sure, if the horizon's tilting a couple of degrees out or there are dust spots in the image then fine, point it out, but the other stuff? Who's to say I didn't want to include that person who's walking out of the frame, just to annoy people who think everything should comply to the rule of thirds? If we stick to the rules too much we all end up playing the photographic equivalent of classical music and nobody's knocking out the rock n roll. There's room for both.

David wrote “Here's how it might have been made stronger” and I think it's that statement which is fundamental. When I read David's first book, my photography improved massively, not because he was telling me what was wrong with my images (how could he, it's a book) but because it gave me “ideas overload' for how to make my images stronger. By focusing on how we can make images stronger we pay respect to the creator of the image and help them to create their own style. By saying “this is wrong, that's wrong, you should/could have removed that object” we put down the creator and their work and inadvertently create conformity.

sorry, went on a bit more than intended. I'll shut up

Before I read the comments I was thinking of a Within the Frame podcast where David showed a well composed photo and talked about why it worked. Then he mentioned “in a perfect world” if there was a person walking over there… At the time my initial reaction was WTF, that picture is awsome why search for something to bash!

He then went on to explain that the image would be stronger with this other element not that the lack of it made the image a poor image. I remember at the time taking note of that language for when I talk about images. I think it is helpful.

This discussion reminds of the many discussions and lectures I attended while in nursing school. One teacher in particular would say, “in perfect hospital USA…., but in the real world…”.

If I had plenty of time to weigh ALL the options about what was best for a patient I may have gone a different direction. But I don't. I have to do it quickly and as accurately as possible. My goal is keep them alive. In a perfect world I may have been able to push a life saving drug while calling the surgeon to update on the patient's status, but in reality, I pushed the drug and got stuck on hold with the answering service before deciding to try something else.

We can critique photos all we want, but I think some of the best photos are those that capture the magic or horror in that split second and if the photographer tried to reposition or change a setting they may have missed it. Does the first photo mean less to me since she has a pole coming out of her head? Absolutely not. In some ways it feels more real, more visceral.

As a photographer and an RN the questions are essentially the same–did I tell the story and convey the emotion as effectively as possible in the time and space I had.

Matt,

Excellent post. I think there's a major expectation differential between fine art and journalistic photographs. I think we (photographers) tend to see “perceived” distractions that would otherwise go unnoticed by most. Personally, a strong journalistic photograph boils down to compelling content— if an image has a strong visual content that provokes a solid emotional response then it's success regardless of other distractions (e.g. a soft image, poor framing). Fine art/commercial photography has much higher bar (aesthetically) and I think the need for a perfect world has been heightened by the ease of photo-editing tools. I'm the very first to admit to using whatever tools are at hand to improve my images. But, it's a balancing act when we're talking about the journalistic integrity of an image. I think it's a growing gray area that will only become more complicated/subjective as technology moves forward.

Erika-I think you've nailed it. I think this is what I am objecting at a gut level. I think it's okay to say, “in a perfect world” as long as we recognize can teach with the real world in mind. I guess I don't think a student should be reprimanded or chased for something they had no control over. But certainly we need to understand, as others have pointed out, principles of good composition and teach those.

Thanks Matt. Your encouragement really means a lot.

Great post, Matt. You're right, all those photos were amazing because they captured incredible human moments and the emotions in those moments, not because they were technically perfect or photoshopped within an inch of their lives. Thanks for posting this. A lot of people need to read it.