Courious about how others judge a photograph.

[malling]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

This is the perfect photograph