What is "Subject Failure"?

Pippan wrote in post #19495822
.
I reckon it refers to the subjective ramblings of photo judges.
.

.
If that is the case, then I think the judges should be held responsible to provide a detailed explanation of exactly what they mean by the term each time it is used. . Judgement is worthless unless accompanied by constructive critique, and yes, it IS the judge's responsibility to provide such critique, whether they realize it or accept it or not.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19495993
.
If that is the case, then I think the judges should be held responsible to provide a detailed explanation of exactly what they mean by the term each time it is used. . Judgement is worthless unless accompanied by constructive critique, and yes, it IS the judge's responsibility to provide such critique, whether they realize it or accept it or not.

.

I totally agree Tom. My comment was a bit flippant as my very limited experience of photo judges leaves me thinking "Who do these people think they are?" Photos are not a competition and quality is in the eye of the beholder, especially the eye of the person who created the image. Constructive criticism can be helpful. Or ignored. If people don't like my photos, I couldn't care less.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19495993

Pippan wrote in post #19495822
.
I reckon it refers to the subjective ramblings of photo judges.
.

.
If that is the case, then I think the judges should be held responsible to provide a detailed explanation of exactly what they mean by the term each time it is used. . Judgement is worthless unless accompanied by constructive critique, and yes, it IS the judge's responsibility to provide such critique, whether they realize it or accept it or not.
.

I don't remember the exact situations where I heard the phrase used, but regardless, it is common for people to use a phrase incorrectly. There are many examples of this. It seems that subject failure means a subject that causes bad metering or white balance, but if you are not familiar with the term, you may give it your own interpretation without particularly realizing it.

That is kind of what I did, thinking it meant an uninteresting subject, but I was aware of a nagging doubt in the back of my mind.

So, what do we call a subject that isn't interesting? Or is that something we don't talk about? There are those who dare to say that a photo fails because the subject is not compelling. It sounds discriminatory! There are others who think that there is no such thing as a poor subject, because it is all a composition game. Freeman Patterson in his workshops told participants to stake out a square yard of lawn in a back yard and then make photos in that area. No subject was poor for him.

Archibald wrote in post #19496008
So, what do we call a subject that isn't interesting? Or is that something we don't talk about?

I'd call it photographer failure. Your first decision is what to shoot. If you don't find a way to pull an interesting shot out of the scene before you, then pass on and look for something else.

I don't have experience with workshops, but apparently subject failure is a judgment made in critiques. Do photographers use that phrase about their own work? Imagine saying "I don't like this image of mine much, because the subject is boring." Well, you chose that subject!

If we stipulate that the comment was made about composition, here's what I think it might mean.

I see a lot of pictures where the scene is nice, the light is good, and the composition well balanced, but I think, what am I supposed to be looking at? Where do I start?

I see that a lot in waterscapes. Hell, I shoot that a lot in waterscapes. Endless beach on one side of the frame, azure seas and wispy clouds or maybe a sunset on the other. But there's nothing to put in front of it. Nothing to guide the eye. I can see that being called subject failure.