# Courious about how others judge a photograph.



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 17, 2020)

When I folks post a photograph, I look at it and; I like it, do not like it or I am neutral about it. I am rarely concerned about the technical aspects of it.    

Still others seem to judge the photo by virtue of more tangible measurements such as focus, depth of field (bokeh), level horizon, contrast etc.

Since I enjoy black and white photography, I have the same emotions about a photograph made in 2020, 1940's, 1920's, 1860's or even Daguerreotypes. Sure a pristine B&W looks better that an a faded old photo but my enjoyment is based on the subject content rather than the technology.

I am curious how others judge a photograph.


----------



## Jeff15 (Jan 17, 2020)

In my opinion, the image has to be in focus and have an appealing look, the subject matter is not important because it means something to the photographer. On this forum, we do see some great shots and long may that be so......


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 17, 2020)

... with most pictures ... subjects, scene, content and the technical aspects is the image.
This does not mean that all images have to be sharp as a tack, or be perfectly balanced in exposure ... everything adds up ... so yeah I think all those things you mention matter ... the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jan 17, 2020)

My criteria is a bit different from others. 

I see patterns in nature and various shapes, styles, emotions and energy. 
It is extremely difficult to capture energy in a photograph. I am not talking lighting, but the life energy of something, regardless of what it is. 

Anyone familiar with the theory of quantum fluctuation and life forces know about this. 

Its not complicated, but a photo of a coke bottle can have that in it, if shot one way, whilst another completely misses it. 

to me my desires and opinion are based on the end result of what I am seeing and not if the rules of thirds are followed with a tack sharp image with perfect chroma representation at 5000K light.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 17, 2020)

Judging a photo is done on a case-by-case basis. if a photo was made under extremely difficult circumstances I might cut it some slack even if it has noticeable technical shortcomings.

 there is no single way to judge a photo... as I said judging of photos is done on a case-by-case basis. For example one of the most compelling photos I ever saw was made at a very early electrocution in a New York State Penitentiary . The photographer had one shot in the camera that he had hidden in his pants leg, strapped to his leg. Once inside the execution room and during the electrocution, he hiked up his pant leg and made the exposure which was grainy and blurry,  and yet I can still see this photo clearly in my mind some forty years after my first viewing of it. I was probably 12 at the time.... I just turned 57 this week. even though that was a poorly done photo, I would say it was one of the best 15 news photos I have ever seen.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 17, 2020)

A spot news photo is evaluated differently than a posed carefully lighted Studio portrait


----------



## Designer (Jan 17, 2020)

Grandpa Ron said:


> I am curious how others judge a photograph.


Composition usually comes first, then technical achievement, then uniqueness.  Occasionally the attributes will assume alternate priority, but those are the main three by which which I judge a photograph.


----------



## Original katomi (Jan 17, 2020)

This is a debate I have seen so many times in camera clubs
And as a teen fall into the trap of photographing to please the comp judge
One judge will see an image different to another
Unless there are guide lines that the image must be within then it can be a matter of personal prospective.
There have been pictures on this site that I have really liked and others that.
Ok well it’s were good but not my thing. I know others feel the same way about my images 
In fact I am known for my Marmite photography #love it or hate it#
As a fellow photographer all I can do is offer advice and suggestions when asked.
It’s then up to others to decide if the like or want to listen to me. 
What I do try and remember is.
I was that keen lad who had just started photography but had no money and what it was like when others often older said that I should get a #real# camera not my zenith or Pentax k1000
Ok now I am a fossil and have better kit, but the young lad who used corn flake box’s to mount photos for a comp is still there. 
So like dislike a photo I think of the person who took that image liked it or knew it was not quite right and is asking how to improve .
Long and wordy. Soz all


----------



## tirediron (Jan 17, 2020)

My first criteria when examining an image are the circumstances under which it was created.  Something done in the studio should be much more technically correct than an image created on the battlefield during an attack.  My second criteria is the known or perceived skill of the photographer.  I would judge an image by Annie Leibovitz much more critically than one by someone whom I know, or suspect has only just picked up their first camera.


----------



## TWX (Jan 17, 2020)

For me, it's a matter of how well the photograph captures what the photographer intended to capture, combined with my own judgment on the value of what the photographer was trying to capture.

Eddie Adams' Pulitzer-winning _Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém_ is an incredibly powerful photograph, and the nature of the subject excuses any faults in the image, most of which were beyond the photographer's control.  Likewise, Rich Lam's photo of the couple kissing on the ground after having been knocked down during the 2011 Stanley Cup Riots in Vancouver is powerful, even if the riot policeman is partly blocking the view, and likewise, the photographer himself was in a risky situation.  What they each captured is more powerful than any distractions or issues in their photographs.

When the situation is more controlled, or entirely within the photographer's control, I expect far fewer issues with a photograph.  Additionally the less time-sensitive the subject is, the fewer issues I expect.  I'm more willing to overlook issues of say, a flying insect, than I am of something like a building.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 17, 2020)

Katomi's mentioned photo contest judging. That was part of the reason for my question. 

At our last photo club meeting a couple of the members were  recalling their old film contesting day. The discussion turned to reasons for a photo to be scored low. It seemed the first cut was based on technical expertise, how sharp, how balanced, was the horizon level etc. Those that made the cut were than scored for content.

It seemed backwards to me, so I was curious how others approached there view of photographs.   

I have seen so many pleasing shots of animals, scenery and people, it would be hard for me to pick a favorite.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 17, 2020)

Street photos can get away with poor technical aspects because the people are the key.  What they're doing etc.  Even with landscapes, there's got to be something that catches your eye in the first two seconds.  Otherwise the photo doesn;t work.  Once caught, negative technical stuff takes away from it though.  What's the expression about a sharp image of a fuzzy subject?


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 18, 2020)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Still others seem to judge the photo by virtue of more tangible measurements such as focus, depth of field (bokeh), level horizon, contrast etc.


All of these elements tie into why someone may or may not simply like a photo, and they are also elements "based on the subject content rather than the technology". So what's wrong with judging a photo based on these things?


All aside, I judge a photo based on impact, content, a photographer's ability to successfully connect their vision to the image, and finally technical prowess. Since technical ability was brought up as being of minimal concern, I'll focus on that. An artist can have a beautiful vision, but how can it be expected that they convey their vision without knowing how to use their tools unless their vision is simply chaos? It's arguably different for every genre (ie street photography or news photography vs portrait photography), where one genre may not expect technical perfection whereas in another genre a single technical imperfection can easily be a glaringly noticeable flaw that takes away from the impact or use of the shot. What I'm getting at here is that I don't understand why people seem to have such an issue with technical criticisms when they are clearly important to many genres of photography.


----------



## weepete (Jan 18, 2020)

it entirely depends on the photograph and content.

Sometimes what could be considered as a technical flaw could actually add to the overall feel of a shot. Take a very simple example of blur, normally undesireable but it can be used to convey a sense of movement within a shot. Intent is also important, did the photograher mean to have the shot sharp but ended up with blur or is it an intentional device used to convey a feeling in a shot?

One of my favorite photographers currently is this guy:

Impressionist Abstract Landscape Photography by Andrew S. Gray

It would be totally useless to assess his work in terms of sharpness, though was suprised to learned you can still tell if a shot is in focus, even when it's that blurred and he discards oof shots.

You also need to look at the effectiveness of the shot. A photographer may have used a technique to try and convey something, but does it work in the shot to produce the desired effect? 

Finally as was already mentioned, a shot may be so unique or powerful because of the subject that getting the shot eclipses any technical imperfections in the final image.

There's nothing wrong with looking at the technical aspects, most shots I like have a good mix of technical competency and vision.


----------



## Original katomi (Jan 18, 2020)

Having thought about what others are saying here.
Whilst I don’t judge photography I would be no good having thrown the rule book away
For record shots, crime scenes, recording lab or other exacting work I would look at the technical side
Was the information recorded can it be used by others does it meat all the requirements  so technically perfect first
For portraits family shots does it capture the moment, meat the requirements of the client and is technically sound and good photography 

Lastly capture the moment shot 
The moment the ball hit the racket of the tennis player, the moment when the child,s face changes when they notice the ice cream has fallen 
The mothers face the moment the bride is kissed. 
Not before not after just that moment. 
As long as the child’s face is in focus and the ice cream is in reasonable focus o their things don’t matter so much
The brides mother, face in focus tears clear preferably with the rest out of focus
These are just my ideas of how I would judge images  
Agree dis agree . I don’t mind I know that there are people who are far better photographers than me and that I would not be able to judge their work


----------



## malling (Jan 18, 2020)

I judge photos mostly from an artistic stand point and whether or not the photograph manage to tell a story or depict important event/persons etc. The technical part is only a tool to achieve that, but isn’t something I judge a picture surely on. 

A photograph can have a high technical level but if it doesn’t manage to tell or show something important, then I don’t value it nearly as high as a photograph that doesn’t have the same technical level but that manages to tell something important.

I completely agree with the above posters, who wrote that a picture is judged from its context, eg. Photo taken in a controlled environment should be judged more harshly, from a technical standpoint, than a street, photojournalistic photographs etc. the more demanding the context is to take a photograph within, the more slack in given in regards to the technical part.


----------



## Jeff15 (Jan 18, 2020)

I am no longer a member of a camera club but I remember Photo Judges criticizing a technically perfect image. So in my view, beauty is in the eye of the beholder...


----------



## Braineack (Jan 18, 2020)

I volunteered to judge at a multi agency visual arts competition for photography. I've been annoyed at the past winners based more on subject matter over technical mastery and artist foundations.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 18, 2020)

One of the reasons I rarely criticize another person's photo is because I do not know what that person was thinking. 

As I have mentioned before, I was in a art gallery viewing some great Maritime and Hudson River school art work from the 1800's, while two rooms over a number of folks were enthralled by some Modern and Impressionist painting; which seemed like little more than random lines on paper to me. 

Yes if a person posts a photo and asks for comments, I may suggest and thing or two.  But this post processing world, seems to have spawned many photo-artist.  So, I just return to my; Like it. Do not like it. Neutral about it.  

One of the features of photography is it can play on the emotions. I like to play on the happy side.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 18, 2020)

It's been quite a long while since I entered an image into competition on a professional level (PPofA).  The panel of judges would set aside a time when they would publicly critique photographs, either ones they wanted to talk more about or ones that have highly varying scores.  It was an education.  

One discussion that would arise often was what standard the scoring was measured by.  If an image achieved a score of 80 or more at an accredited state competition, it would automatically be awarded a merit and "hang" at the national convention.  So...  was the image measured from 100 (a perfect score), or 80...  making it in or out.  Getting a 79 was tough to take, essentially meaning they liked it, but not enough to include in the national exhibit.

I decide about an image by the way it makes me feel; more accurately it it makes me feel at all.  Technical competence, of course, matters; it does help make the viewer "feel."  

The thing is...  photographers will judge a photograph quite differently than the public at large.  This can be hard to accept at times, especially in the early days of one's career.

AND...  experienced professionals will judge an image differently than avid hobbyists.

Does any of it really matter?  Surely.  But why?  Are we looking for affirmation?  Are we wishing to preserve or advance the profession?  Maybe we just want to know our work made someone else feel.

-Pete


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 18, 2020)

As others have said, depends on the circumstances. I also believe it depends on the personal tastes, and experiences of the one doing the judging. I've seen a few "judges" in clicky camera clubs that are highly prejudice, and others grossly unqualified. For myself, if I'm still looking at a photograph after 5 seconds then something in it caught my eye, and I'll examine it further.


----------



## webestang64 (Jan 18, 2020)

For me this is all that counts in the long run. 


Christie Photo said:


> Maybe we just want to know our work made someone else feel.



If I "feel something" when looking at a photo, I like it.....other than that, I don't give a hoot how "great" a photo is to anybody else. And since I have seen literally millions of photos in my 35 year carrier as a lab tech there are so many of those photos that get a "Meh" for me.


----------



## otherprof (Jan 18, 2020)

TWX said:


> For me, it's a matter of how well the photograph captures what the photographer intended to capture, combined with my own judgment on the value of what the photographer was trying to capture.
> 
> Eddie Adams' Pulitzer-winning _Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém_ is an incredibly powerful photograph, and the nature of the subject excuses any faults in the image, most of which were beyond the photographer's control.  Likewise, Rich Lam's photo of the couple kissing on the ground after having been knocked down during the 2011 Stanley Cup Riots in Vancouver is powerful, even if the riot policeman is partly blocking the view, and likewise, the photographer himself was in a risky situation.  What they each captured is more powerful than any distractions or issues in their photographs.
> 
> When the situation is more controlled, or entirely within the photographer's control, I expect far fewer issues with a photograph.  Additionally the less time-sensitive the subject is, the fewer issues I expect.  I'm more willing to overlook issues of say, a flying insect, than I am of something like a building.



I've always been puzzled by the criteria of the photo capturing what the photographer intended to capture. As a retired philosopher (I love that title) I frequently find myself asking, "How do you (I) know what the photographer intended to capture? It may be there is something so powerful about the image that it seems we know what the photographer intended to capture; that it seems so clear and unambiguous.  I have the same problem with people who judge portraits by how well they "caught the personality of the person," when we have no evidence about the person's character except the portrait. I think again what we are presented with is an image - painting, photograph - the gives us the feeling we can see into the character of the sitter so clearly, and the truth of this feeling is irrelevant to our evaluation because it is most often not determinable.


----------



## malling (Jan 18, 2020)

It’s part of the process for a photographers to frame the picture so that the viewer knows exactly what the “intention” is, who or what the subject is. If you don’t know or can’t figure it out, I don’t think the photographer did a particularly good job.


----------



## TWX (Jan 18, 2020)

otherprof said:


> I've always been puzzled by the criteria of the photo capturing what the photographer intended to capture. As a retired philosopher (I love that title) I frequently find myself asking, "How do you (I) know what the photographer intended to capture? It may be there is something so powerful about the image that it seems we know what the photographer intended to capture; that it seems so clear and unambiguous.  I have the same problem with people who judge portraits by how well they "caught the personality of the person," when we have no evidence about the person's character except the portrait. I think again what we are presented with is an image - painting, photograph - the gives us the feeling we can see into the character of the sitter so clearly, and the truth of this feeling is irrelevant to our evaluation because it is most often not determinable.


I will not dispute that happy accidents happen.  Hell, probably the majority of the most adorable pictures of my two year old daughter are just that.  On the other hand I was attempting to get something good in such photography, so it' not unreasonable to say that was my intent.  Luck played a significant role in what I got, but I had sought to make such kinds of pictures, hence intent.

There are undoubtedly times when what a photographer got was _completely_ by-accident, like in 1970 when John Gilpin was just testing his new camera while at the airport, presumably heading off to vacation, when he inadvertently captured an image of fourteen year old Keith Sapsford falling to his death in his ill-fated attempt to stow-away in the wheel well of a DC-8 taking off from Sydney Airport.  Completely by accident and with zero intent he ended up with a photograph on the cover of _Life Magazine_, because again, what he captured was so powerful that even as an accident it was still incredibly and worthy of being viewed.


----------



## Designer (Jan 18, 2020)

Grandpa Ron said:


> One of the reasons I rarely criticize another person's photo is because I do not know what that person was thinking.


You don't need to know that. 

Art is subjective, therefore it should be expected that we all will have differing opinions.  

What you think when you look at the art is what it means to you.  The photographer's intent may be deduced, but you are free to disagree about whether he achieved his goal.


----------



## otherprof (Jan 18, 2020)

TWX said:


> otherprof said:
> 
> 
> > I've always been puzzled by the criteria of the photo capturing what the photographer intended to capture. As a retired philosopher (I love that title) I frequently find myself asking, "How do you (I) know what the photographer intended to capture? It may be there is something so powerful about the image that it seems we know what the photographer intended to capture; that it seems so clear and unambiguous.  I have the same problem with people who judge portraits by how well they "caught the personality of the person," when we have no evidence about the person's character except the portrait. I think again what we are presented with is an image - painting, photograph - the gives us the feeling we can see into the character of the sitter so clearly, and the truth of this feeling is irrelevant to our evaluation because it is most often not determinable.
> ...


I agree with what you are writing. I'm not saying that photographers don't get exactly what they were trying for sometimes, and get lucky ("well look at that!) sometimes. I'm just saying that most of the time we third parties can't tell how the image got that way, and it doesn't matter if we are judging the image, not the photographer.


----------



## star camera company (Jan 20, 2020)

I do NOT have a photographers eye.  My pictures are NOT good.   I cannot recognize GOOD.     This is tough to say but it has proven true.   These facts in no way diminish my interest in the Camera.   So, you could say, I judge the photograph as the product of the Camera.   Being a camera collector mostly the images they make to me are secondary.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 20, 2020)

Very interesting and varied opinions, as one would expect. 

I must admit I have never seen the perfect photo. I have seen photos that others say "that is perfect"; but I have never seen a photo that every photographer, everywhere, from all photographic backgrounds, would agree that there is no possible way to improve the shot.  

It would be a dull photographic world if we all though exactly the same.


----------



## star camera company (Jan 20, 2020)

This is the perfect photograph


----------



## TWX (Jan 20, 2020)

star camera company said:


> View attachment 185542 This is the perfect photograph


Respectfully I disagree.  It's a powerful photograph, it signifies a powerful moment in American history, but it isn't perfect.


----------



## malling (Jan 20, 2020)

TWX said:


> star camera company said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 185542 This is the perfect photograph
> ...



It might be powerful, but it’s also one of the most criticised photojournalistic pictures of its time, as the photographer made it happen, instead of reporting what happened by taking a picture in the right moment. I doubt any photojournalist would get away with it today, as it’s blurs the line between fiction and the genres it supposed to represent, making it more propaganda than anything else.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 20, 2020)

If I am in an active war zone, all rules are off about what, how and why a photo was shot.

The impact, far our weighs the photographic details.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 21, 2020)

malling said:


> ... the photographer made it happen, instead of ... taking a picture



Isn't that what a photographer does?  I suppose journalism is the exception, but I've always considered that to be my job...  MAKING photographs, not TAKING pictures.  Anyone with a camera can take a picture.

Hmm...

-Pete


----------



## malling (Jan 21, 2020)

Christie Photo said:


> malling said:
> 
> 
> > ... the photographer made it happen, instead of ... taking a picture
> ...



 photojournalism in its pure form are meant to witness and report events of common interest to the public, by taking pictures of the event. So it’s very different from many other photographic fields, where the photographer create the event and the photograph. 

But obviously any photojournalist have decided beforehand what perspective of the event they want to depict, this is obviously made by traditional photographic techniques and values, like framing. 

Why this picture isn’t photojournalism as the event is created by the photographer.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 23, 2020)

Photographers are humans not machines.

I would think that as a photojournalist, sent on an assignment, you would have plenty of preconceived opinions.
What does your boss want? How you feel about the subject? Is the project worth you effort? Even the freelance photojournalist has to have some opinions about the project they are about to undertake.

Hence, you will pose, photograph, and uncover items that you feel are necessary to obtain your objective, ignoring issues that others might be interested in. Like an artist, a persons paints or photographs what they see, not necessarily what is really there.

One thing that has become obvious from my question is, there are as many ways to judge a photo as there are people judging.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 23, 2020)

For those who are interested.
In the near future, two of my friends and I are starting a web-based pilot test on what qualities in a photo make it important.
The director for this test is a world expert on monitoring the public's taste on various issues.
It will be free and will take about 5 minutes on 3 separate occasions but at your leisure.

If the pilot test gives any meaningful results, we will expand it and go forward.
I will post a notice in this thread.

Lew


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 24, 2020)

I always judge with a gavel and robe!


----------



## mrca (Jan 25, 2020)

A great image has impact.  The maker has something to say and all that goes into the image supports it and  enhances it.  Composition, lighting, posing, editing.  Ancil said it is good if  you get 10 great images a year.  I have won and judged professional competitions in CA before moving to FL where I continue to judge.  But I cut others more slack than I cut myself.  To create the perfect  image takes skill and sometimes 
a bit of luck.  To make consistently good images, not so hard.  If folks don't take the time to learn what helps make a good image, they will be like that blind squirrel occasionally finding an acorn.  I have a shoot tomorrow, I HAVE to produce a killer image.  And I have every confidence I will.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Jan 26, 2020)

zombiesniper said:


> I always judge with a gavel and robe!



I always let Judy do my judging my for me!!! 
SS


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Jan 26, 2020)

mrca said:


> A great image has impact.  The maker has something to say and all that goes into the image supports it and  enhances it.  Composition, lighting, posing, editing.  Ancil said it is good if  you get 10 great images a year.  I have won and judged professional competitions in CA before moving to FL where I continue to judge.  But I cut others more slack than I cut myself.  To create the perfect  image takes skill and sometimes
> a bit of luck.  To make consistently good images, not so hard.  If folks don't take the time to learn what helps make a good image, they will be like that blind squirrel occasionally finding an acorn.  I have a shoot tomorrow, I HAVE to produce a killer image.  And I have every confidence I will.



Mr, you know, here's what I want to know? On these forums almost everybody is a pro, at least all those that never post a photograph are. It seems that the qualifications to be a great photographer today, according to some, is to have started in the Pleistocene shooting film manually, like that means anything. Seems it's because it "slowed down the process"! Why don't you just post that great photo you're gonna create and let us be the judge of whether it's great or not? 
I mean, the last time I looked this is a photography forum but with few exceptions, everyone just talks but never posts anything.
I remember a particular Pulitzer Prize winning photograph from quite a few years back...., it was a guy that jumped/fell out of a window and the photographer got the shot while the guy was maybe 1/2 way down. Do you think the photographer had something to say? My guess is the photographer had ZERO control over the subject, the composition, the lighting etc, etc, but he won a Pulitzer Prize! Some shots are well planned, others like many sports shots are just happenstance. 
Sure, in creating a cover for Vogue Magazine EVERYTHING is controlled. But there great/good photographs like sports, nature or street that can only be planned to a certain degree and the rest is dependent of factors not entirely in ones control. 
Everybody wants to put photography into a box but it's not a one box fits all! Yes photography absolutely has rules, and I'm not talking about the 1/3's, I'm talking about all the other rules.
Anyway, just post that pic. I'm sure by now you've got it all PP'd!!!
SS


----------



## Original katomi (Jan 27, 2020)

I think I know the pic that you are talking about . The man half way down after jumping out of a window
The 9/11 twin towers, image. That was a snap, it’s blured but it is a powerful image, that captured the moment.
Like other images of the time.
That image was no intended to be judged, it’s more of HAY this happened, this person was so .....afraid, desperate whatever, that they jumped. 
In the same position I don’t know if I would jump or burn.
You say about people not posting images.. 
for me it’s simple... reason.
Given how easy an image can be copied#no that I think members would# if I don’t want my images copied
I don’t post on the web, anywhere on the web
I am trying out a new idea and posted images, yep I know they are not good and that I can improve them but if someone posts a comment that will help, that’s good


----------



## Braineack (Jan 27, 2020)

Sharpshooterr said:


> mrca said:
> 
> 
> > A great image has impact.  The maker has something to say and all that goes into the image supports it and  enhances it.  Composition, lighting, posing, editing.  Ancil said it is good if  you get 10 great images a year.  I have won and judged professional competitions in CA before moving to FL where I continue to judge.  But I cut others more slack than I cut myself.  To create the perfect  image takes skill and sometimes
> ...



You know, there are typically various categories for judging...


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 27, 2020)

A reminder for those who seem to have forgotten.  

_*TPF prides itself on encouraging friendly and open discourse regarding photography. Personal attacks on any members as well as TPF Staff will not be tolerated, and these posts will be deleted and the instigators possibly banned.  

* Flaming is not tolerated. *Any member who routinely taunts, insults, or engages in any inflammatory, fight-inducing behavior will face banning, and such posts will be edited or removed.*_


----------



## Photo Lady (Jan 27, 2020)

I think the more interest i have in the photograph subject the more interested i get to be somewhat technical.. although just really learning technicality in the true word of it all.. so overall it is the subject and subject matter and then how well it is presented in the photo..


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 27, 2020)

I think it's similar to other crafts, and art, etc. in that the technical aspects are part of it. I do quilting and I could come up with a good combination of patterns and colors, etc. but if the workmanship is sloppy it's going to detract from the overall quality. A good photo needs to make good use of balance, framing, etc. as well as visually convey something of interest to viewers.

I've done submissions to juried exhibits and photos may be considered based on how the images followed given guidelines or portray the theme. The judging can take into consideration how any of the submissions would work with the rest of the exhibition, etc. It can be somewhat subjective I think because whoever's making the selections will likely make choices based on their background.

In my experience so far, a photo needs to stand on its own. The initial submission usually just includes last name first, etc.; then if accepted it needs to include a title, description, etc. If a photo needs explanation then probably it didn't convey what was intended, although viewers bring their life experiences to how they see it.


To go back a little... there seem to be misconceptions about the photo of the flag raising at Iwo Jima. The photographer did NOT stage it; there's newsreel footage to show that he photographed what was there. What happened is that soldiers apparently had first put a smaller flag there in a rather impromptu way; then a commander gave them a larger flag to display, and that's what the photographer captured when he arrived on scene.

See The Story Behind The Iconic 'Flag Raising On Iwo Jima'

Edit - Link to the website for the Pulitzer, with a wacky looking title! 
{{(global.pageOgTitle) ? global.pageOgTitle : global.pageTitle}}


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 31, 2020)

Grandpa Ron said:


> When I folks post a photograph, I look at it and; I like it, do not like it or I am neutral about it. I am rarely concerned about the technical aspects of it.



Evaluating a photograph is a deeply nontrivial and subjective process ... and yes, a good photograph can have technical errors and nobody will care.


----------

