how do the people of /p/ evaluate quality in photographs?
I visited it for the first time earlier today and I'm curious and genuinely confused by a lot of what i see in threads here.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 650 Image Height 429
How would you evaluate the above image, or the one included in this post?
>>2784215
Literally how effective I think it is. In other words, whether or not I think it 'works'. I don't think any image is perfect but some are stronger than others. It depends entirely on the image in question, and there is no exact formula for every single image that is universal. Even "good light" or "good composition" means different things in different images.
For example, in the photo you posted the composition is busy, but IMHO it's busy in a good way. It's a city street corner so it's supposed to be busy, and I find the lack of actual people in the image + the dog is making me curious.
YMMV though. Some would say it's a snapshit.
>>2784215
>dog waiting at a crosswalk with no owner in sight
>hydrant in foreground, dog probably visited hydrant in his doggy dog daily world
>dog intersected by pole
>dog in "dog house" intersected by stoplight pole in the background
>corner of the car instantly gives the photo a feel of time and place
>everything seems to be facing left, like snoots on stoplight, shadow of street sign on white column, the car on the white, the electric pole leans to the left, all linear perspective points to the left. this gives a sense of "something's about to happen", which is especially reinforced by the dog looking left.
>>2784216
This one looks like your average Albuquerque yard.
>>2784220
Sounds like overanalyzing.
>>2784223
Read a book.
>>2784224
Good books don't have pictures in them jerkass
>>2784223
>>2784220
Whether it's overanalyzing or not, I experienced this photograph step-by-step and with some of his stated points I see reasons why I did this way.
I first looked at the right two thirds, then was guided straight to the house and there pushed to left. Not until then I saw the dog and I had to search for an owner, the roads are empty, however.
Opinions are not critiques and vice versa. Every now and then you'll find a well thought out response, but majority of the time it's ignorant people who have no idea what they're doing just shouting really loudly.
The differ is that you can like a photo that's terrible, and you can hate a photo that's good. I've been in a game for a while and noticed the people who make it big March to their own beat.
Pay attention to critiques when they offer you something tangible that you can improve upon. If the post amounts of "this is shit" "this is boring" etc etc etc you can pretty much throw it in the garbage.
If you shoot professionally like I and many others in the forum do, the only opinion that matters is that of the clients. Else the only opinion that matters is the one belonging to you.
>>2784956
>Else the only opinion that matters is the one belonging to you.
This must be taken with some compromise! Many beginners take this badly and turn in their own shit like just the own opinion matters. One has to measure its own success at the right audience. This excludes most community response, response from family and friends.
I still consider own photography in a different manner and this not objectively, so I often improved but also dropped photos due to feedback from experienced photographers. These critiques make things obvious to me that I missed right before.
So I am all the more delighted if my subjective evaluation is carrying through the given feedback and will then be confirmed with popularity among the targeted group.
>>2784215
>My thesis professor had a book release party at a jazz club for Lee, and he snapped a pic of me.
Anyways hes very prolific and much of his work requires you to be aware of the period in which the photos were taken. Along with the geometric forms that he creates in them particularly in the statue series.
>>2784223
If you were to explore a picture (or your experience of a picture) for a few minutes, you'd find a lot of things. Then when you talk about those things, people say you're over analyzing.
My 5C's grading system. Pretty similar to the kind of systems that are used in art schools.
>Content.
If there's nothing that is immediately attention grabbing and visually interesting to look at in a photo, I won't even bother attempting dive into the photo, and end up getting lost in a sea of details trying to find an interesting focal point, because it was your job to make sure the focal point was obvious.
>Context.
If you have that interesting focal point, I want to know why that is part of the photo. How does the focal point interact with the rest of the photo? Does the focal point logically go in that spot? Would the focal point make more sense if taken from another angle, or moved to a different location in the frame? If it doesn't make sense, how did the photographer do in making it's oddity work?
>Composition.
Rule of Thirds. Golden Ratio. Symmetrical vs Asymmetrical. Leading Lines. Size Importance. Near vs Far. Foreshortening. Whatever else you want to add in. Basically, any composition fundamentals that can be applied to a photo to make it better.
>Clarity.
Is the photo in focus? Is the depth of field appropriate? Is there motion blur or camera shake, and are they intentional or not? How clearly is the scene represented? Is there too much noise? Terrible moire? Is the photo busy or slow?
>Color
White Balance. Vibrance. Saturation. B&W.
Do the Colors work well with the Content? Is the white balance off? Colors that are too "happy" in a sad or dark environment? B&W in a picture of a Coral Snake, of which colors are it's signature mark, and necessary to identify it?
