How do you evaluate a photograph?

[SquarePeg]

I tend to use my initial reaction and then think deeper on what it is about the photo that made me feel that way. I’ll sometimes look at technical points like dof, composition, light, focus, pov etc to see if they added to or detracted from the photo. That’s about it. I’m not super technical when I shoot or process so I don’t really look at other people’s photos with that perspective. If I really love it, I’ll examine it much more throughly as to why so I can use the info to improve my own photos.

As for cc and feedback-
If I like something and I comment, I try to add a note about what I like about the photo or set. If I’m in a rush and catching up on a few day’s posts, I may just hit like or winner and move on.

If I don’t like it or find it to be not very good, I won’t usually critique unless it’s been specially asked for even though any photo in the gallery forums other than Just For Fun is technically open to critique. I prefer, if someone wants critique, that they elaborate on what they are struggling with on the photo or state what they like about it to start the conversation. There are plenty of other forums/Facebook groups/camera clubs where people give rude, blunt, harsh critique whether you want it or not. I don’t come to this site for that and I don’t think most other members do either. But critique is the best way to improve so offering it in a friendly and helpful way should be what we all strive for.

If critique isn’t asked for but the OP really needs improvement and obviously doesn’t know it, I’ll sometimes comment with a note about something I would change if it were my photo or with a question about why the OP chose one thing over another.

 

[jcdeboever]

I'm not qualified to critique. I often comment on images that I enjoy looking at. Life is too short. I really don't take my failures to seriously.

 

[waday]

Similarly just repeatedly saying 'nice shot' as a post count boost is pointless imo and helps no one. That said, some do like their ego's massaged, regardless of how bad their photography skills are.

While not a frequent “nice shot” poster myself, sometimes I’d like the OP to know that I like it. So, visiting and saying “this is nice,” is my way of being friendly. It sure beats not having any interaction when posting a shot, IMO.

And... Sometimes people don’t actually ask for critique, rather they just want to share. So, knowing the OP is important, because giving critique in those instances could be considered rude (depending on the person and situation).

In that case why not say why you think a shot is good, what does if for you, expand slightly.

I don't think it's rude at all to give positive crit in the manner I detail unless specifically asked that none is given. The point was on every other photography forum I'm on if a picture is posted it's open for crit as was confirmed by a Mod on here if I recall correctly the last time the subject came up.

As I said in my original post, I am aware that some folk don't like it and are stuck in a bubble thinking poor pictures are better than they are. That's fine if that's what you want out of photography but I think most would like to improve. I certainly learned that way.

I recognize your statement as a valid opinion.

 

[RVT1K]

It's like food...if I like it...it's good.

 

[Designer]

That's roughly my process. What's yours?

I will often look at a photograph more than once, and if there is enough going on in it, then I will take extra time to analyze why it has captured my attention. I am willing to put in some effort at a critique if it looks as if the photographer has put in some planning, time, and effort to create the photograph. A casual snapshot and the short-hand request "thoughts?" shows me that the photographer has invested very little time in making it, therefore I will allow only a very short critique of it.

If there is something there to consider, then I take my time and start digging into it more. Probably the biggest contributor to success is the composition. I look for good balance, such as; mass/void, light/dark, symmetry/asymmetrical balance, as well as line, form, texture, etc. I can appreciate a photograph that has good composition even if the technical aspects are not so great.

Occasionally the best feature of a photograph is capturing the moment. A moment that is spontaneous and not likely to be discovered again is worth quite a bit because it might not be the same if staged. The more famous "street" photographers of years ago would sometimes capture a shot that would make people stare at the photograph in wonder. Notably, some of those shots are technically not good, but they have withstood the test of time in capturing people's attention.

Lastly, I look at the technical aspects. Is the subject in good focus? Does the exposure look correct? Is the depth of field adequate? Is the photo level? (unless it's not intended to be level) Does the crop compliment the subject? (i.e.: vertical for vertical subjects, and vice-versa) and is there adequate space around the subject to allow for framing? This is not a comprehensive list, but just what was on my mind at the time.

 

[jkeller]

The three basic components of nearly all photographs have been alluded to in this discussion, but I don't recall them being spelled out. They are; subject, form, and content. In some ways these are tiered, but the order of importance depends on the larger context for any given photograph. Subject is, simply, the "what" of the photograph. Form, is the "how", and Content it the "why. As a visual artist/photographer, I'm typically more focused on the Form, dealing with the design elements (line, shape, value, texture, color, space) and the design principles (composition, harmony, balance, symmetry, asymmetry, repetition, simplification, focal point, etc.). These are the things that my critiques with students typically focus on. (pun intended) However, subject matter is important and some would argue the most important of the three. To the layman, that is probably the case. I make the case to my students that great photographs are strong in subject, form, and content. The later, content, is arguably the most important of the triad. The really sad thing about where Art and Photography have drifted in the last century has been that the ultimate content, "Beauty", has so often been denigrated as trite. Cliché in photography does tend to make a photograph a bit boring, but Beautiful, in it's whole sense, is the apex of great photography. Photographers with a critical eye will expand their understanding of all three components when critiquing: subject, form, content.

 

[Soocom1]

So I am going to approach this from a completely diff. standpoint and some will think (perhaps most) that I am in woo woo land.

I am not one to say with certainty that I am or am not empathic to a certain degree. I simply "see things" in ways others don't.
When I look at a photograph, its intent is to relay a story, a message, or an impression of what the photographer saw at that moment in time. Simply put, what you see you want to tell.

OK. So for me when shooting in the wilds of various nature and landscape, even architectural or eng. shots, what I look for is the "feeling" of the shot and try to capture it. There is a kind of (here is where I am going to get weird of people) an "energy" of the environment. Meaning that sometimes the picture simply makes itself.
Other times it comes out in PP, but in whatever sense, the "catch" of the image is what I am intending to get to "pop" out.
It could be color, lines, other shapes, a mood, whatever that lets its own story to be told, and I try to simply catch what I can.

Sometimes I fail spectacularly, (more accurately MOST of the time) but regardless, the crux of my intent of seeing is what I try to push.

When I look at others work, as previously mentioned, there is an "impact" of sorts. Wheat their intention was or is may be diff. from what they intended. However, I don't judge on those terms either specifically or deliberately. I am looking to see how the image affects my view of it. Is it "ok", mediocre, impactful, WOW or "HOLY ANSEL ADAMS BATMAN" .

There are many times I see an image that looks from the "rules standpoint" (Darrel this goes back to the rules of thirds we had last year) as complete garbage, but IMPACTS me so much that fudge the rules, just enjoy the shot. Its really the final product that makes that impact, and it does or does not have to follow "rules" or be "prefect". It just needs to hold my attention.

 

[Overread]

There are many times I see an image that looks from the "rules standpoint" (Darrel this goes back to the rules of thirds we had last year) as complete garbage, but IMPACTS me so much that fudge the rules, just enjoy the shot. Its really the final product that makes that impact, and it does or does not have to follow "rules" or be "prefect". It just needs to hold my attention.

The important thing to remember about the "rules of art" is that they are not rules but theories, ideas and guidelines. There's also a LOT of them and they can all cross cross and interact with each other. In addition there's no singular "weight" to them. Ergo there's no linear scale of X is better than Y, their variation in importance within a photo varies from shot to shot based on the situation.




What you see as the energy of the photo is starting to see some of this, however likely lacking an indepth understanding of the many theories in order to "see" them. WoW factors in most photos have things we can start to identify as contributing to that factor (which can also vary person to person too). By identification of those elements you can start to spot the myriad of theories. Even though many of them will be more subconscious or even luck based for the photographer when they took the shot.

So I'd say you're not in "woo woo land" you're just in "art" land.

 

[johngpt]

I'll judge a photo in ways similar to what weepeete, Space Face and Leonore have written.
Rarely will I criticize (negatively) a photo. I might make a comment about some facet of a photo which I like, so as to say something more than 'nice photo.'
I always look at others' photos and think about what I would have done differently, in terms of technical issues.
Would I have attempted to avoid blowing highlights by using a faster shutter speed?
Would I have attempted a different angle?
Would I have dodged and burned to draw the eye in certain directions?
I don't consider myself a good enough photographer to do other than use others' photos to try to improve mine.

 

[Derrel]

I look mostly for photographic skill and good technique as well as composition skill. A photo does not have to be perfectly Sharp or perfectly 100% in focus if artistic or visual components outweigh technical shortcomings. Many times a slight technical shortcoming can be overridden by a picture that has a high degree of impact in other ways.

Some types of photos however demand technical Perfection or nearly so, and it is difficult to describe how one evaluates a photo without 10,000 words to describe the process. Some photos are "vernacular" images, snapshots, if you will, and those are evaluated differently than serious Artistic Endeavors.

 

[zulu42]

The square root of length times width divided by emotion

 

[DanOstergren]

The initial impact and artistic vision are most important to me, followed by how the photographer used their light, color, composition, and if the subject is interesting or was captured in a way that makes them interesting. Honestly I would have a much easier time actually critiquing a photo than I seem to be having with explaining how I might critique a hypothetical photo though.

 

[Derrel]

What is the sound of wind?

You have 1,000 words...And....Go!

 

[Jeff G]

The sound of wind is a gentle whisper on a warm summer's eve, or the roar of a freight train on a stormy afternoon, the sound of the wind is.....uh heck I don't know.....the whistling between my ears!

 

[BananaRepublic]

PS @Designer I'd be particularly interested in hearing yours as you brought this idea to my attention!

Thank you for asking, but since I've been specifically asked by the mods to "stuff it" (not that exact wording) once, and been asked to "never comment again" on two posters' threads, I choose not to pour gasoline on the fire at this time. Let me think about it for a while.

Diesel doesn't ignite like gasoline but it still burns.