To evaluate a photograph

This is from last yearﾒs Camera Arts article by Michael More (Apr-

May ﾑ05) and Iﾒm passing it on to this forum because we seldom or

never talk about what makes a good photograph. We all think we know

what a good photograph is but I think these are mostly gut reactions

and are probably more about you than what youﾒre viewing. (A likes

cats, B hates cats) I always want to take more of myself out of the

evaluation. Otherwise I just continue to espouse my own rightness

which is boring and ultimately often violent. I think a work of art

should be met on itﾒs own grounds and not be imposed upon by asking

it to comply with anybody's expectations. <BR><BR>

 

Ask yourself these 7 questions when evaluating the merit of a

photograph:<BR><BR>

 

1. What was the photographer trying to do?<BR>

2. How well did they accomplish that?<BR>

3. Should it have been done at all?<BR><BR>

 

The next 4 are from Phillip Larkin who sits on the Booker Prize

committee evaluating entries for the best novel in Britain<BR><BR>

 

4. Could I read it?<BR>

5. If I could read it, did I believe it?<BR>

6. If I believed it, did I care?<BR>

7. If I cared, what was the quality of my caring and would that

caring last?<BR><BR>

 

The Larkin criteria build on another so a good mark on #7 means you

have to have previously gotten good marks on 4,5 & 6 to even qualify

for evaluation at #7. Like the top of the pyramid, 7 is really

difficult to attain but still the goal. With this we could raise

the level of our criticism.

<p>The first 3 mean nothing to the photograph- "Intentionalism" is a flawed evaluation

process when trying to determine the meaning of a photograph, or if it is any good or not.

Just because someone makes a photograph that they say matches exactly what they

wanted to do does not make the finished product a good photograph. Since no one can

ever know exactly what the photographer was really trying to do- there is not much point

in putting too much weight behund their intent.</p>

<p>Take a look at this amazing site: <a href="http://www.moderna.org/lookatme">Look

At Me</a>. This site is a fantastic example of how in the end the actual Photo is far more

important than the intent of the photographer. We don't even know who took those

photographs, much less <em>exactly</em> why they did, or what they were trying to do.

You could say, "they were just taking a snapshot" and that is a fine answer. There is no

reason that art needs to be anything more than that- surely there are photographs on that

site that rank among some of the most haunting, most interesting, and most challenging

that I have ever seen. And to think that this was all done without any idea of the

photographer's intent, or opinion. But again, the Photographer's opinion means nothing

too much more than my opinion of the work. Since we all can only own our photographs

and not the meanings, it is what the viewer brings to these (and our) images, and how they

work for them.</p>

<p>In my university photograph class we used two text books-- "The Nature of

Photographs" by Stephen Shore, and "Criticizing Photographs: an introduction to

understanding images" by Terry Barrett. Great books-- I can't reccomend them enough.

Without any hesitation I'd suggest to everyone who is interested in this sort of topic to

click on over to a book store website and order them right away.</p>

It is an interesting set of criteria. I've found myself coming back to #7, mostly in the context of having been spending time with a big book of magnum shots and the emotion or atmosphere created and evoked by an image. #7 articulates why I find myself enjoying a lot of the shots that I do. And contrary to John's thoughts, and not just to be contrary, that ties back to #'s 1, 2 and 3. Maybe that's narrowing the approach to the communication between the photographer and the viewer, when good images stand in their own right regardless of the photographer's intentions ...

 

I think #7 is significant for the street genre - the stronger shots (or at least, what I think are stronger shots) are empathetic with the people in them, or readily communicate atmosphere. If I try and think back to the shots I've seen on this forum in the past few months, it's those that I remember. But it is still pretty subjective.

Unless I am mistaken, if you are referring to Philip Larkin, British poet, the man has been dead for 20+ years. As great a poet as he was, I maintain that he is therefore not qualified to sit on the Booker Prize ccomittee.

 

He probably could lie flat on it tho'.

And maybe we should add a #8 -<br>Even if I care, and even if I care in a quality way, and even if that caring lasts, do I like the @#$% border?

>>>The first 3 mean nothing to the photograph- "Intentionalism" is a flawed evaluation process when trying to determine the meaning of a photograph, or if it is any good or not. Just because someone makes a photograph that they say matches exactly what they wanted to do does not make the finished product a good photograph. Since no one can ever know exactly what the photographer was really trying to do- there is not much point in putting too much weight behund their intent.<<<

 

Intent is important and sometimes essential to some photographs especially doc. photos as opposed to art photography imo. Acourse the viewer can and will draw their own thought/meaning through their individual experiences.

The ONLY question in evaluating a photograph ought to be,

 

What is the intended purpose of the photograph?

 

Is it to please only yourself? Your friends and family? A paying client? A committee designated to pick a "winner" in some category?...

 

In my never humble opinion, all other criteria are moot. Period.

>>>Is it to please only yourself? Your friends and family? A paying client? A committee designated to pick a "winner" in some category?...<<<

 

Some people actually photograph for reasons BEYOND just simply pleasing someone.

"Some people actually photograph for reasons BEYOND just simply pleasing someone."

 

Elaborate.

Kent,

 

I think your approach is too much analytic. After all arts should appeal to emotions (you might disagree, but this is what I want them to do to me). Therefore I trust my gut instinct.

 

I don't like, e.g., conceptual photography and most of the coldish stuff coming from artists as Andreas Gursky or Candida Hoefer or Bernd & Hilla Becher. And the thing that they might express something or not or that they hang in a museum doesn't mean anything to me.

 

Their picture don't speak to me... and in this sense the snapshots that my girlfriend takes are to me more interesting.

 

I like pictures that are able to trigger a reaction in me. This reaction may happen for different reasons, some are completely irrational (the portrait of that person might remind me of somebody I knew...) some are more keen to be described (composition, light) and structured.

 

Just look at the POW of this week. That picture "has it". Most of the picture we post here "don't have it". It's not about being pleasant or well composed or with a good balance of colors or a good grayscale... after having seen 100000 pictures of people drinking coffee at starbucks and staring out of the window with the cup in their hand without that the photo shows anything new actually it was taken with a 200mm while hiding in a care because the photographer was fearing to be confronted...

 

they should ban photography in subways and coffee shops just to try to push people to get more creative.

Today, I'm much less concered with what I think the photographer might have meant or what he/she might have been trying to accomplish than I am with whether a picture takes me anyplace -- <i>literally anyplace</i>: anyplace funny, sad, anxious, tranquil, frightening, resentful, self-conscious .... <p>

 

I often can't tell what the photographer intended, and even when I believe I can, what if I've "guessed wrong?" Surely that shouldn't mean I've got to take back my opinion or my feelings about a picture.

There's also another myth bandied about by people in commenting on various photographs.

 

"This photograph tells a story..."

 

Bullsh*t. Photographs don't tell stories. You tell stories to yourself when you look at a photograph. Your story may be completely different from the story your neighbor tells himself or herself when they look at the exact same pic.

 

The photographer's own intended purpose is of little to no value in judging the success of a photograph, because the success criteria are different for different people.

Nels---

 

The obvious...

 

Les Americans by R. Frank

 

Inferno by Nachtwey

 

Eugene Richards's Cocaine True, Cocaine Blue

 

Cindy Sherman's conceptual film stills

 

Do you really think they were merely just shooting to simply please themselves? or their editors? or clients?

 

Perhaps they were trying to say somthing thru their photos...no?

Pretty much agree with Michael. Taking it a bit further, for me, a successful street photo first

has to let me easily conjure a story about the situation or circumstances - that's essential in

capturing my interest. Evoking emotion and/or portraying humor/irony/mystery/ambiguity/

etc as does tension between elements greatly helps. The random person walking down the

sidewalk or snapped against a wall doesn't cut it for me anymore. I have never thought about

the photographer's intent.

Many excellent photographs in those collections, Leslie.

 

"Do you really think they were merely just shooting to simply please themselves? or their editors? or clients?"

 

All of the above, perhaps. For each person who is pleased with any individual photograph in the collections you cite above, I can show you two people who couldn't care less.

I take photographs to show how I see the world. I don't see how "why I do it" would or should have any bearing on whether or not they are good.

 

They become good photographs if they resonate in the viewer.

Nels, as I read your 6:50 and 7:30 posts, it seems as though they contradict one another. Or quite possibly I've misunderstood?

 

I think Kent's opener asks whether there's an external, repeatable, objective set of criteria by which we might judge photos, even though there will be subjectivity inherent in the ways each of us analyze the agreed-upon criteria.

 

That's a very good question, but certainly not an easy one.

Michael,

 

What I'm trying to say is, the success criteria - external, internal, or whatever - that people employ in judging a successful picture are as individual as people, i.e. they're mostly all subjective. There are some rules of thumb suggested as mere guidelines to make photographs more pleasing to the eye, but for each photograph that employs those rules, there's an equally pleasing image that breaks those rules.

 

You can have the most beautifully lit B/W studio portrait of a baby and if the mother just prefers color, a simple poorly lit and ill-composed color snapshot of her baby is more successful for her. That's the one she will display on her fridge or her wall. Who are you to argue with her choices? Would you tell her that your criteria are somehow more objective and "external" than hers? Even if she understands your arguments, does she care?

Michael,

 

Re-reading my "6:50" post, "intended purpose" could have been better substituted with "end goal" of the photograph (not the photographer!).

 

Cheers.

I have to agree with MIchael for "street" photography. In terms of analysis of a photo, what Kent suggests is one way, but often an artist's intent is merely one text. Many good photos have many texts, and many sub-texts which makes analysis and critique an intellectual exercise albeit sometimes a rich and meaningful one. Sometimes they are just simple but interact on a deep level beyond reason..but to me whatever it has, it has to have "something". Even though I'm guilty of it myself, just getting a passer by or shooting into a crowd and calling it "street" doesn't make it "good". Then again, depending, sometimes it does:)

<i>You can have the most beautifully lit B/W studio portrait of a

baby and if the mother just prefers color, a simple poorly lit and

ill-composed color snapshot of her baby is more successful for

her. </i><p>

You made a judgement call that the portrait was beautifully lit. By

saying that you're implying there is a consensus on what

qualifies as beautiful lighting. Of course individuals can have

differing opinions, but there's a reason someone like Robert

Frank is held in high esteem in the world of photography and Joe

Blow is not. It's because a significant number of people who

study photography have agreed on something. <p>

 

Did Duke Ellington create greater music than most other jazz

musicians? There's a general consensus among people who

care about this type of music that he did. What's truly of value will

survive through time, the rest will fall away or be of lesser notice.

To me the lesson of the "Look At Me" site is not that the intent of the photographer is irrelevant. Instead I think it shows that a distinction needs to be maintained between evaluating a single photograph and evaluating a body of work. There are lots of arresting images at "Look At Me" and in the recent books, "Anonymous" and "Snapshots." Even so, I don't think any of us would care to venture an opinion as to the level of skill of any of the photographers involved. To make a judgement about a photographer you need to see what he/she is up to and you can do this only by seeing numerous images. As a photographer's body of work grows judgements about the photographer become more sure. Also, there are photographers whose conception involves multiple photographs from the get go. To judge this or that particular shot in Cindy Sherman's "Film Stills" misses the point entirely.

well, Nels's last analogy about a photograph done for the mom of her baby splits the photographs into two groups. So, we should actually have two sets of rules.......one for hire pics......and one with no immediate person designed to please. And then of course we should have a set of rules that is for a pic eventually targetted to a certain type of person. Of course now that has to be divided into two groups also........whether it is for advertising, or for art patrons. Which come to think of it, brings us back to the mom pic....perhaps the pic is not acceptable by the mom and she gives up all rights to it, and then the photographer exhibits it in a gallery and it just WOWs everybody in the art world....now would that be a duality set of rules based on a possible target group, but immediately a for hire job?

 

....and then of course, there is the snapshots of the immediate family.......which is a whole other set of criteria....did you cut off Uncle Bob's head.....no......great pic!

 

and what about artists who's work is scorned.......until well after their death..........ummmmmm........where does that fall? How was/is that to be evaluated......let's see........first...is he alive, or is he dead........second.....

 

there are no criteria........the artist does what they want......and the viewer judges as they want to........and that is it.

 

IMHO

I often say that there is art based on affinities and art based on symbolisms...and that there is not a fine line between the two. Then recently it occurred to me that humor could be a middle ground between the two genres...

 

But most art based on affinities is going to get immediate recognition for artistic composition. Now for instance if a bride and groom are standing to get married but their heads are not included in the picture then that is either bad composition or that is symbolism...

 

So basic composition must be immediately accepted while symbolism requires evaluation...

 

Well this is a street photography forum, so basic theme must be immediately accepted while symbolism requires evaluation...

Interesting responses. I'm suspicious of those who state, one way or the other, that their opinion is the only thing that counts and, by the way, everyone else's opinion is garbage. That is precisely what I'm trying to go beyond with this thread. And to those who feel they must say so with contempt or ridicule or sarcasm, I ask why? <BR><BR>

 

I'm not suggesting that the artist's intent is the only criteria or even the most important. Many of you got stuck on this one point and argued pro or con while ignoring the subsequent criteria. Intent and it's accomplishment is a factor for me, especially in evaluating my own photos and it's certainly in my mind when I decide to take a photo. Later when I look at the negative I want to see how well I met my intent. Sometimes I get things beyond my wildest dreams but I was lucky and I can't always depend on that. I need to have a dream or an objective (call it intent) and I strive in that direction or "what's a heaven for?" <BR><BR>

 

Bruno is right that I'm being analytical. I come from a scientific background. But there are two sides of your brain and both may get activated by a photograph. I'm trying to get beyond the purely subjective "I like it" or "I donﾒt" which is precisely what Bruno seems to be saying. That may be enough if you're only considering what photographs you personally admire, but as Ray says, there is a reason Duke Ellington will survive and Lawrence Welk will not.<BR><BR>

 

What Michael says about whether or not a photograph moves me is important. A photo has to grab me in the first few seconds and what usually gets my attention is something the photo makes me feel. Otherwise I think "that's interesting" (not really) and move on unaffected. But beyond your immediate reaction or feeling I suggest there are further criteria of merit which can be considered.