How do you judge a picture?

[Roger Hicks]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94380 is Stewart's Café-bar thread: a brilliant idea, with many superb pictures. But if you go through the whole thread, how do you judge/compare the pictures? Of course there are those who say you shouldn't judge or compare, but if we ignore them (as I think we should), what criteria do YOU use? Here are some of mine (and one of Frances's):

1 Does it fit the theme? In other words, is it unmistakably a café-bar?

2 Does it say something specific? In other words, is it anything other than a snapshot, without any real centre of interest?

3 Is there enough shared experience in the picture? In other words, can we imagine being there/would we want to be there? This is Frances's contribution.

4 Deriving directly from (3), though apparently in direct contradiction: is this a lazy rip-off of something I've seen before?

5 Is the technical quality adequate? If not, is it remediable (better printing, spotting, etc.)?

6 Would I be proud to have taken this picture? Or, if it's nothing like my style, how heartfelt would it be when I congratulated the photographer?

In the past I've judged a fair few photo contests, but with this thread, I found myself thinking more in terms of a book: I've edited a few of those, too. The pictures in a book have to hang together, unlike a competition, where you're judging individual pictures. This also raises the question of editorial coherence/vision: popular vote won't cut it.

What do others think? By what criteria do you judge pictures? And how important is editorial vision?

Cheers,

R.

 

[S.H.]

For what it's worth, here are some thoughts:

I don't appraise a lone picture in the same manner than a picture from a book / serie.

For a lone picture, I think (obviously) it should stand by itself, so the subject (whatever it is : it could be 'cafe bar', 'rough texture', or 'blue color') should be cleanly emphasized.

A picture among others can be (still obviously) less individual. In fact it should be, because it could destroy a whole serie if one picture stand out too much. In this case, editing is more important than pure technical skill. It is not the case with a single image.

I think also than with series of pictures, one can develop a message with more subtle images. A single successful picture has always some sort of 'in your face' quality.

Just randoms thoughts here. I do not pretend to know anything serious about "judging" a good picture. In fact, I just enrolled in a photo club to discuss a little about that and participate in competitions (never tried before).

 

[helen.HH]

Generally speaking
I like to be taken Over .... Submerged when I look at a Photo
'See' , 'Feel' and 'Breathe' its Presence

The Qualities which stand out to my Eye & Senses seem to be:
Atmosphere
An Emotional Pull
Thought Provoking on some Level

I'm certainly not looking for Technical Perfection....it just must Move Me 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

Generally speaking
I like to be taken Over .... Submerged when I look at a Photo
'See' , 'Feel' and 'Breathe' its Presence

The Qualities which stand out to my Eye & Senses seem to be:
Atmosphere
An Emotional Pull
Thought Provoking on some Level

I'm certainly not looking for Technical Perfection....it just must Move Me 😉

I certainly agree, which is why that was no. 5 on my list, except that it should not be so technically bad that I notice the technical shortcomings before I notice the picture.

Cheers,

R.

 

[paulfish4570]

whether in a series or an individual photo, it is a "winner" if i want to know more about it, beyond who, what, where, when, how and why ...

 

[redisburning]

I only look at photographs one at a time.

Now it's true that I listen to whole albums only and I like photo books but I evaluate each piece individually. For example, I may prefer Beethoven's 7th and 9th symphonies overall my favorite movement is the first from the 6th.

Anyway, I don't care about theme or story bulls*** in the slightest. If there are prerequisites to being considered, we just put aside the ones that don't meet them. Then I just see how well it executes the aesthetic of the photographer.

Look, a Picasso is a masterwork not because old Pablo was a super gifted technical painter. Yes, he was, but he used that to execute an aesthetic that didn't show it immediately rather than show off how "perfect" a traditional painting he could make.

 

[daveleo]

Generally speaking
I like to be taken Over .... Submerged when I look at a Photo
'See' , 'Feel' and 'Breathe' its Presence

The Qualities which stand out to my Eye & Senses seem to be:
Atmosphere
An Emotional Pull
Thought Provoking on some Level

I'm certainly not looking for Technical Perfection....it just must Move Me 😉

That's pretty much how I feel (your words are much more eloquent than I could have written).

I will emphasize that "technical perfection" (aside from being argumentative and undefinable) means almost nothing when I am looking at photos, pictures, images.

 

[Murchu]

Generally speaking
I like to be taken Over .... Submerged when I look at a Photo
'See' , 'Feel' and 'Breathe' its Presence

The Qualities which stand out to my Eye & Senses seem to be:
Atmosphere
An Emotional Pull
Thought Provoking on some Level

I'm certainly not looking for Technical Perfection....it just must Move Me 😉

Very well said. My own process for looking at photographs has always been quite intuitive, rooted in emotional response and the subsequent depth of a photograph.

I agree quite strongly with the role of technical quality, or rather how far behind other qualities of an image, that it is. I think Roger's distinction that it should be adequate for the image, is spot on, and for me needs to be no more than that. Some of my favourite images are Ted Croner's images of New York at night, for example.

In any case, many thanks for starting this thread Roger!

 

[gns]

At first, I try hard not to judge, but just to look with an open mind. It's difficult not to make a superficial quick judgement. Some pictures will just take you over immediately, while others may seem uninteresting at first. But I've learned that what you like initially may not hold up or offer much over time. And likewise, it may take time to really see or appreciate something, especially if it is unique or new.

Later, with work that I like, I will often try to evaluate why it is interesting or "works". That does not mean that I am applying a list of criteria, but again trying to be open and just consider how the various component elements work together to create the whole.

 

[gns]

... I think Roger's distinction that it should be adequate for the image, is spot on, and for me needs to be no more than that.

I agree with that except that I would use the words, appropriate to, rather that adequate for.

Gary

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Of course there are those who say you shouldn't judge or compare, but if we ignore them (as I think we should)

I sort of switched off after reading that, so I suppose my position is that first impressions are the most important, both with images and with the written word.

 

[daveleo]

I sort of switched off after reading that, so I suppose my position is that first impressions are the most important, both with images and with the written word.

I nearly switched off at that also. I also almost wrote a snide comment about it but didn't, and I decided that Roger's question (reworded for me) was "what is it about pictures that you like or dislike". In the original wording, the word "judge" turned me off until I got passed it.

helenhill's response helped me stay in the game as well.

 

[DtheG]

Fits theme? That's a pre-qualification for a competition, but even then outstanding work may get away with bending the rules.
Likewise with technical quality, it's bad if it gets in the way. In reportage almost anything can be forgiven if it is the only record of something special. In that case a technical failing is a cause of regret; a dimunition but not erasure of value.

So if it fits the criteria of theme and the technical quality is not a spoiler?
I try and ignore the idle curiosity aspects: "where is that place", "I know that place", etc.
It is harder to ignore personal taste, what I find interesting, would want to photograph.
Becuase in the end my judgement does tend to be: could I do better, do I wish I could have done that? Which is the whole point of looking at photographs here; I want to learn by emulating some better exemplars than just the best of my own work.

 

[Sparrow]

On the few occasions I have had to "judge" artworks it's been hanging committees and the like. It has normally been possible to agree criteria and work through it in a formal way; something like:

Composition 0-20 points
Content or narrative 0-20 points
Technical accomplishment 0-10 points

It's then easy to give each work a score and it's only the few around the pass-mark which require any prolonged debate ...

... I'm always amazed how many people use subjective criteria, "I like" seems an arbitrary way to judge art to me.

My cafe-bar shots are usually the start and end of films when I'm finding somewhere to sit, have a coffee and reload my cameras, that is they're really just snapshots much like the rest of my stuff

 

[Erik van Straten]

A picture is great when you never forget it.

Erik.

 

[Murchu]

A picture is great when you never forget it.

Erik.

Quite true. I also liked Blll Jay/ David Hurns description, of a good photograph going straight to the heart and taking its time to work its way to the brain.

 

[porktaco]

Generally speaking
I like to be taken Over .... Submerged when I look at a Photo
'See' , 'Feel' and 'Breathe' its Presence

The Qualities which stand out to my Eye & Senses seem to be:
Atmosphere
An Emotional Pull
Thought Provoking on some Level

I'm certainly not looking for Technical Perfection....it just must Move Me 😉

well said helen

 

[tmfabian]

I judge on intent, and how well it accomplishes that goal. Advertising photographs are not the same as photojournalism are not the same as fine art are not the same as...you get the picture...For me, intent is everything...any monkey can go out and grab a random image that is great in some context...a great photograph is one that beautifully portrays what the photographer intended.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Subsidiary question(s): how much is judging contextual, i.e. dependent on the intended use of the picture? And what do we mean by 'use'? (Private wall, competition, exhibition, magazine, book...) Who decides context?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mackinaw]

Roger, you really know how to get people talking. Talk about a popular thread. Over 1,000,000 views!

Jim B.