Be your own Picture Editor

(Note: No innocent photographers were harmed in the preparation of this tutorial. All the accompanying
pictures have been dragged up from the depths of my own image bank!)

PART ONE Watch out there's some critique about

Digital photography has had a revolutionary effect on the way we take photographs. The market is positively flooded with affordable digital cameras that are capable of turning in very high quality results. But having the kit is one thing. Taking good pictures is another and, if world-wide fame and fortune was dependent on kit alone, we'd all be leaning on our tripods sipping champagne and counting the cash!

Let's forget fame and fortune though. Because this tutorial isn't aimed at people who could already knock Mario Testino into a cocked hat. It's been written for people who have a passion for pictures but would like a few tips about critical appraisal.

In particular, what are those precise differences that lift a picture out of the "good" and into the "excellent" category? And whose critical advice can you trust?

A good place to share pictures and advice is an online photographic forum. But be cautious about some of the critique you might get. Because on some forums aimed at enthusiastic starters, a quick browse soon shows you that pictures are always either: - "wonderful", "sooo cute", "marvellous" "soooo lovely" etc., and a positive thesaurus' worth of superlatives will include the suggestion of turning professional.

or

- "wrong" because arcane compositional "rules" have been broken. Rules which are then explained at great length by some ancient photographic pedant. Said pedant often being the creator of technically good pictures that would have been impressive had they not contained as much creativity and "life" in them as a dead haddock.

"sooo cute"? If you like blurry spaniels with chronic red-eye. Otherwise no	Wow! Pisa! Terrific! Er, no. I've pictures of Luton with more sense of place. A masterpiece of compositional confusion.	"Have you thought of turningprofessional?" What? youmean there's a saleable market forlow resolutionpicturesof Morris Dancerswith traffic lights coming outof the topsof their heads?	Awesome! ? Only to anyone who hasn't seen the sun rise ever in their whole life............ Otherwise it's just plain mediocre.

What you are looking for from a critique is constructive advice that recognises creativity and quality but gently points out areas for improvement in a way that makes the reader want to experiment further. Not bin their camera and take up stamp collecting! You'll soon discover which forums suit you best so have a thoroughly good browse and join as many as you have time to enjoy.

Inviting comment from your nearest and dearest will also be an essential part of your interest in photography but they, too, can be an unreliable source of critique – "yes dear, very nice" or "how much longer are you going to hog that computer?" not always being the response you needed at the time.

To balance the critical appraisal you receive – and to gain confidence in your own abilities – it's important to trust your own instincts and ultimately, be your own worst (and best) critic. This is much easier said than done because separating yourself from your own creativity can be difficult so a spot of role play can be a real help. In this case, I'm suggesting you play the role of a picture editor and review your work as if you were planning to publish it in a newspaper. This allows you a realistic context in which to appraise your work so, settle down in front of your computer, make irritable demands for more tea and the sub-editor's digestive biscuits and turn to part 2 of this tutorial for the script!

PART TWO The Camera and the Picture Editor never lie!

In the newspaper business, a good picture brings even the dullest news story to life, catches the reader's eye and, if exceptionally newsworthy, can be syndicated nationally. But a picture editor has no time to waste on pictures that don't "wash their own faces" and the critical process can be very ruthless.

The difference between a publishable picture and one that doesn't make the grade relies on elements that may seem blindingly obvious:

• composition
• focus
• exposure

but it's the degree of these elements that matters:

Composition means no unnecessary or distracting detail. Focus means pin sharp at the focal point Exposure means correctly exposed across the whole image.

When more is less. Especially the chap on the phone and his mate in the sunglasses who didn't need to invade Des Lynam's space!

Composition An eye for composition has to be accompanied by an understanding of precisely what you are trying to capture. And the realisation that, whilst every picture tells a story, you aren't looking at the photographic equivalent of War and Peace! Many excellent pictures are ruined by the inclusion of too many features but the temptation is hard to resist. Take this situation, as an example. You are standing outside Buckingham Palace with your family who are tidily organised for a group picture. Just before pressing the shutter, you realise that, within the same focus range, an eccentric old lady clad in a tea cosy hat is feeding the pigeons and a regal-looking black car that might contain the Queen is speeding away down The Mall. It takes great strength of will to remember that, at most, there is room for only TWO of these features in the shot you are about to take. Putting your picture editor hat on, you realise that a picture of the back end of a black car is only marginally more interesting than watching paint dry. Your family outside Buckingham Palace will be a good picture because it has subject and object in a memorable context. And, if you fancy a spot of Picture Post type social realism (and who doesn't?) the old lady could be very photogenic although it's important to get a clear shot of a pigeon AND a good profile of the old lady. Alternatively, you could include Buckingham Palace as a "riches to rags" sort of juxtaposition provided that the old lady is the focal point of the shot.

People often complain that celebrities are over-exposed. Not in this pic which has run right off the under-exposure scales of adjustment!

Exposure It's easy to correct under or over-exposure in Photoshop and certainly, most press photographs need a minor tweak on the exposure front. However, there is only a relatively fine degree of correction possible before the picture degrades to a point where it is completely unusable. Like auto focus, auto exposure can be left to the camera although this doesn't rule out some peculiar results when the camera is coping with a lack of contrast or when flash is needed. Picture editors don't tolerate images where the main subject looks like a ghost and neither do they tolerate the reverse "cat in a coal hole" effect. No matter how well composed or focused the picture. Yet again, the only place for seriously under or over exposed photographs is the recycle bin. Check the settings though, before hitting the delete key, because it might be that stopping the aperture down or composing a similar picture so that the flash is angled differently will make all the difference next time. Remember that the whole point of the critical exercise is to identify ways you can improve and develop your photographic skills.