What do you judge a photo on?

elven

It's friday :pac::pac::pac:

So, following on from the excellent thread about 'getting' a photo, one of the really clear ideas that came out of that thread was that everyone is judging images on different sets of criteria.*

I'd be interested to know just what range of criteria people are using round here, and also, if you maybe hadn't thought about it before, you might read this thread and say to yourself "hmmm actually I wasn't looking beyond blown highlights. Maybe there is actually more to this photography malarkey than technical perfection".**

So, do you look mostly for 'beauty', in whatever form you appreciate it? Bright colours? Contrast? Full range of tones, detail in the shadows? Pleasing arrangement of lines and shapes within the frame?

Are you interested in whether the subject means something to you personally, and is being presented in a way that maybe makes you see it differently, or reenforces your own thoughts on the subject?

Are you looking for an emotional connection with the photograph, through something possibly ambiguous in the way that songs do with an arrangement of notes, that's maybe not necessarily possible to express in words?

These are just examples, i'm not putting them forward as the only options by any means.


*Disclaimer: this thread does not imply any answers are more worthy than any others
**It was worth a try

Fenster

1. A manifest lack of swans, swans being the training wheels of contemporary photography.

2. Blandness. Is it bland? No? Win!

3. Does it offend my sensibilities? Related to #2 and #1, but definitely separate.

4. Does it fit with my personal aesthetics? Would I hang this on my wall?

5. Technical qualities such as sharpness, even horizon, lighting, etc.

I value (good) artistic expression so I usually weigh an image more upon its impact than its technical presentation.

Fajitas!

Fenster wrote: »

I value (good) artistic expression so I usually weigh an image more upon its impact than its technical presentation.

But why does good artistic expression have to have impact? Can it not be subtle? Banal?

On a coach with dodgy connection at the moment, will reply in full later. I know you're all looking forward to it :pac:

Fenster

It can be subtle and it can be banal, yes. I judge entirely by my own personal standards because I can't pretend that objectivity exists in art. However, a whole big category of photography - street photography, candid people and macro are three - simply doesn't interest me as a person or a photographer, so I tend to mark those down.

dakar

Ah Jaysus, I did thinking yesterday!:P

On first read, I found myself going 'yup', and 'yup again', and 'that too', and 'Oh yeah, forgot about that'.....

So I need to go away and have a good strong coffee over luchtime (curse you working in the afternoon, I'd murder a pint with some heavy duty recreational contemplation like that) not so much to formalise 'what I like in a photo', but to see if I can figure out if there's a framework my brain subconsciously works within when I decide I like an image.

My snap answer is that I like an image if it makes me come back to look at it again.

elven

I suppose something to do is to look at a few that you do like, and try to identify what it is in those that speaks to you.

sineadw

but the impact *can* be the banality To feel meh about an image is still feeling something. I think that's what Nickerson did to me - I was overwhelmed by the underwhelmingness of them. Which is not a criticism. I think :pac: I don't mean it in the snipey way it could be read anyway..

For me its usually on an emotional level. I've mentioned before about seeing the Adams' prints in Edinburgh and feeling absolutely nothing. I could appreciate the technical greatness of them, but that was about it for me. I've been looking at a lot of Salgado's stuff, particularly the Migrations series (terrible website, gorgeous imagery), and I could look at them forever.

I'm too hung over to think beyond that at the moment..

dakar

elven wrote: »

*Disclaimer: this thread does not imply any answers are more worthy than any others

Incidentally, why not?

Surely a well reasoned opinion, either for or against a given point of view, carries more weight than 'cos I just like it' or 'cos it's sh!te', no?

Maybe not to the person who's making such a statement, but in the broader context of a debate.

Barname

breasts

nonsequitir

I had to think about this a little, but there's usually two parts to it for me when I look at a shot. And after these, sometimes context can turn a shot around.

Initially, a photograph just has an impact on me or it doesn't. It could be any number of attributes, and for me every case is specific. In a landscape it might be the expansiveness, in a portrait it might be a post processing treatment or just the eyes, in a street/travel shot it might just be the sense/feeling of being transported somewhere completely different. If I like it, I'll comment and probably look back at it again and again.

So after an initial appreciation I find myself getting interested in learning about the image - mostly because it affected me in some way, so I try to understand why. This is probably because I'm interested in photographic technique with a view of perhaps helping influence my own and partly it's just geekery. So I like to look at the image in the context of it's make-up: what works in the lighting, the colour, how was it post processed, what was the setup? These kind of things. This doesn't take a way from from the initial appreciation at all in my opinion. It's a matter of scientific record that the human eye and emotion are drawn to certain compositional and lighting arrangements and this interests me greatly.

So after those two views, there's that "little bit more" than just the image itself that works for me. If a photo has a great title or some descriptive text that adds a story (or value), then this can improve the experience of seeing the image, this can have a big impact because it connects you a little with what the photographer was thinking when they shot it.

I'd also suggest that a photo viewed on its own might have less impact than a photo seen in the context of a related gallery of shots, because the gallery arrangement may also tell a story.

I probably haven't answered your questions at all, but I think that's the problem - beyond a mere technical analysis of composition, exposure, saturation, sharpness and DoF, I think it's got to be a highly personal and contextual answer.

DK32

I'm often intrigued to see the amount of feedback an image gets and it's critique. I love the way some people describe an image and it's attributes, You can kind of tell when someone is just blowing smoke up your rear end or if the feedback is genuine.
I really don't enjoy reading feedback about rules, composition etc... to me that stuff often takes away from the fun & creativity aspect of photography.

I like to keep it really simple and let my emotions judge an image.
If it makes me smile or frown or in fact moves me in any way then for me it's a good image.
If it does nothing for me then I won't comment on it or give it further thought.

CabanSail

The criteria for judging a photo has to take into account the audience for which it is intended. So the first thing that needs to be established is into which enviroment that photograph is going.

For example, as people at work know I have an interest in photography I get asked to take photo's. The aim of these images is to illustrate a technical detail or as a reliable record shot. To judge if those images are successful then they have to have sufficient detail and be sharp where it counts. If using flash then the reflections have to be avoided. No need for composition or anything fancy. Saying I left that soft intentionally to give a better feel to the subject would not wash here, so stark reality is the measure of success.

If the images are for competition or similar then there are certain technical details that need to be checked as that is how Judges generally do Judging. In this case the images have to be sharp where required & the exposure has to be correct (ie no blown highlights etc.) Then there needs to be evidence that the composition has been considered in the process. After those boxes have been ticked the image needs to express a message or feeling to the viewer (or Judge) For a Panel this has to be repeated with the added consideration of where that particular image fits within the whole panel & how it relates to the others which are included. I will often submit work that does not tick all the technical boxes just because I think the message or feel of the image is worth it. They don't often do well but sometimes you will find a judge that "gets it"

Photo's which are just for me do not have to have any of the above. They just need to have a meaning to myself, nothing else. They can be poorly exposed & have technical "faults" but they have meaning to me. When out with the Camera these are what I generally shoot & then later will select from that images for other purposes (such as Club stuff etc.) I have seen people get caught on the "competition" treadmill & they will not shoot a landscape as the light is not right for the conventions, whereas I will shoot it and be happy with it for what it is but just will not use it for competitions.

When shooting family & friends I like to get candid shots so that they are not posed & are a record of what was actually happening at the time. Take these images & add a few years of decades & they can become true wonders which can mean a lot to those in the family. So capturing the ordinary in that context is the mark of success.

So .... rambling here .... but the mark of success is as much to do with the audience as the photographer.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I like a photo to make me go 'wow', which is an entirely subjective thing.

Maybe it does this because the photographer has gotten into a difficult physical location to get it, maybe it's a picture of something beautiful that I hadn't seen before, maybe it's an image of something everyday from a new angle, maybe it's a perfectly captured 'moment' which will never happen again. Certainly it's nothing to do with focus, depth of field, the rule of thirds, leading lines or dynamic range.

superflyninja

For me its the mood of the photograph. The technical aspects dont really matter. It could be taken on a mobile phone. After mood the next thing I look for is meaning or a message.

hopelessOne

I think "judging" a photo is the 2nd thing you do... right after you instantaneously make a like/don't like decision.

So I guess judging is about understanding why you like or dislike a photo. And in my head I might run through the subject, lighting, composition, feeling, the background story, humour etc before I find the reason why I like or dislike an image. I'm not sure there really is a finite list of things to judge an image on.

Judging an image is inevitably about judging & challenging yourself and your initial impressions.

humberklog

If it's got big shoes and tickles me brain...then it's on the wall. Oh hang on...that's how I consider if I like a pic...I'm not equiped to judge so kinda use my liking it as a wonky barometer of judement.
Now I could well be apalled at a photo and that may mean I like it for that reason. I don't mean like as in pleased. But "like" as in attracted to for gazzilllions of reasons (or one reason) and kinda use that as my judging stick. And sure that's grand as Vanity Fair aren't exactly banging my door down looking for me to critique an exhibition so I've only gotta please myself, which is deadly.

KarmaGarda

Simply if I look at and think "I like it".

I find it much easier to say why I don't like a photo. If I can't get past a blown out sky, then in my opinion that image needs a properly exposed sky. If I can't get by the bad focus, then that photo should have been in focus. If I can't get past the... you get the idea.

That doesn't mean photos I like are technically perfect. But once I figure that I don't like a photo I find it fairly easy to point out why. Why you like a photo on the other hand can be far more subjective (seems to be my word of the month)

daycent

I like pretty pictures.

nonsequitir

So, based on the posts here, I can recommend two great reads if you want to judge photos correctly...

http://bit.ly/4P40JA and http://bit.ly/7LXCzS

Fenster

nonsequitir wrote: »

So, based on the posts here, I can recommend two great reads if you want to judge photos correctly...

http://bit.ly/4P40JA and http://bit.ly/7LXCzS

Bot?

Covey

I only like photos taken with a Likea

outspann

More and more I'm liking unpretty pictures.

I can be blown away by wonderful images of staggering vistas - but I'm not sure anymore how much of that is about the "photography" and how much is about the "vista".

So, here's an image from the Deutsche Borse photography competition mentioned in the first thread. I think this is a great shot. I could get all wordy here - talking about the lone figure, the banal activity, the sun flare, a man in nature while the concrete expressway and gas station rolls on behind him - I could say all that, and it would sound like pretentious bumpf. People would say I was talking sh!te. And it certainly sounds that way. But it's the truth. Maybe the problem lies in trying to put into words the reasons why I like the photo. I end up over-complicating it and sounding like a luvvie. Maybe I should just say "coz I like it". But if I do that then I don't bother thinking about WHY I like it, and I've no way of explaining it to you.

KarmaGarda

I agree with you outspann up to the point where you feel you need to explain why you like something. Sometimes you can't, and that's fine.

Think of it this way (and it's a bit of advice to anyone studying at the minute). If you're asked to speak/write about something/someone, it's easier to speak more constructively about something you don't like, or see flaws in, as opposed to something you do like. If I was to stand up and speak about, let's say McCullins work, whom I like very much... I could try explain why, but it would sound a bit silly. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of Nickerson's work (as per Sineads thread) and I could give lots of reasons why, and even possibly explain why others do like it. I can explain what I don't get about her work, yet also explain what I *think* she's trying to achieve. I can't do that for McCullin, I suppose it starts to sound lame when you can't think of the negative points.

So the advice to people studying and have to write/speak about something like this, pick someone you're not as fond of over someone you love. Makes for far more interesting listening/reading from a markers point of view.

nonsequitir

Fenster wrote: »

Bot?

Yes, a bot, for sure - definitely.

nonsequitir

outspann wrote: »

More and more I'm liking unpretty pictures.

I can be blown away by wonderful images of staggering vistas - but I'm not sure anymore how much of that is about the "photography" and how much is about the "vista".

I don't like vista and would strongly recommend Windows 7 instead.

AnCatDubh

A couple of thoughts;

What I am drawn towards (not really judging);

Sometimes things dark / sometimes things pretty
Mostly things edgy, high contrast, void of colour or desaturated, noise and grain can be good too
I like things that are interesting in photos - mostly not the main subject
people in photographs are good but not necessary
I like detail and the minute
I like there to be a story or the mind is left wondering.
Washed out can be nice.
Photo essays are good but I rarely do them (or see them in these parts).

But all this is meaningless really. It only applies to me and me at this moment in time. Tomorrow is another day. How I judge a photograph isn't important as it is perfectly valid for me but can mean squat diddly for others and the others view of colourful pretty things is valid in the absolute for them.

I don't think the generality of it can be codified but rather is unique for each of us. You may find similarities with people, or you may follow people you want to aspire to become more like their liking. But imho, photography is mostly an art of solitude in this respect. Yeah, sure - you end up with a flickr explore, a competition win, a pix.ie TOTD, an exhibition in the Gallery of Photography/IMMA at what point people will see/some may like/others may think "gick". If those that think "gick" outnumber those that think "like" then your position of solitude is solidified more for you - but someone has obviously recognised something in your work. If those that "like" out way the others then your ego is massaged some more and you need to go take more of the same to know that you have achieved "greatness".

I think this is one of the reasons that photography can be emotive - the "oh, I can't believe they call that image photography" opinion that swings into town.... It happens to those with recognition as much as newbies who have just picked up their cameras. There aren't rules which are valid to define what people should be doing. We'll learn the basics to get us started on the journey and it is then the art which takes you further imho.

I think you've got to find space for the swans (which I don't mind too much tbh), for the subject in center, for the absolute max depth of field and sharpness, for the muddy field, for the out of focus, for the black and white, for the colour, for the medium format, for digital, for la chapelle and capa.

If you distort what photography is or attempt to make it conform in a particular way then I feel you do the art a disservice. If photography is swans for some people or a perfectly centered "well wha do ya think of tha" image of your granny for others, or the perfectly formed but out of focus frost on a glass pane under moonlight on a cold winters night for others, then so be it.. bravo the art that is photography - Enjoyable by all.

/All of the above is from an incredibly uneducated mind so is only an opinion and not one that you should pay particular attention to.

Morrisseeee

/All of the above is from an incredibly uneducated mind

LOL

mmmmm...........what do I judge a photo on ? lets just say...........its complicated ! ACD (above) just scratched the surface !!!!!!!!

nilhg

It's Saturday now and I've just come in form a family do, (disgruntled farmers and builders telling each other you've got it easy) so this is a change of pace...

TBH I've been trying recently to only judge my own photos, and to be as hard as I can on them, but that's another days work...

When I'm looking at others work I'm always hoping for something that kicks me in the guts, you don't have to think or rationalise, you just know that it's the business, and in that case I don't want to de-construct it , just admire from afar....

With the rest I just try to look for the positive elements and figure out why they can't carry the negative ones.

The old saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder applies I suppose, though i suppose that eyes can be educated.....

P.S. My young fella (an aspiring musician no less) has just informed me that Tom Waits cant sing for s**t, so I suppose you can substitute ear for eye....

ThOnda

How do I judge a photo?
First there are some photons emitted from a light source, they pass through a colour mask that changes their wavelength, then they travel in the air bending themselves slightly in the lenses of my spectacles, next in line is some organic material in my eye and there are some sensors at the back that create tiny electric impulses transferred to my brain. Those impulses are distributed into parts of my brain and they are looking for similar pattern (group) of impulses. Such patterns were saved in the memory in during all my life when I was looking around myself and begun to combine visual inputs with emotions. And facts.
Such learning process created a catalog of memorised associations. And is being updated on daily basis. Something new gets in, something gets moved into other part of the picture catalog, something might slip away.

So when I look at the picture, the subconsciousness pricks my mind by bringing on some reaction to a similar picture that was stored in my memory. There are usually two reactions - I like and I don't like. Or nothing. And once the first reaction flows into my mind, it might make me stop, slow down, start to study the picture to find out what interests me in the picture (frame, quality, colours, sharpness, saturation, tonality, composition, pictured objects, boobies, people...).

The main judgment is basically the emotion evoked by the picture, either pleasant or the other one, based on experience and learning. That is why I say that although conceptual art is wonderful, captions can enrich the pictures, five Ws (what, where, who, when, why) can teach me something, each single and individual picture should be able to bring up some emotions to make me interested in that picture.

RoryW

visual impact

subtlety (where the picture looks great and then you notice a subtle twist) and unusualness and different take on an oversnapped image


(yes I know it is one of my own, but I like it )