How can you/do you judge an image?

[wmc718]

<p> I wonder how many of us are able (or even capable) of separating the model(s) from the overall image when we make a judgement of it? This question would apply to Nudes, Portraiture, Fashion and some miscellaneous images.<br>

For example, I've seen a lot of very well-done images in terms of composition, lighting, and so on, that had obese people in them, or models that didn't do anything for me personally. Do the models/subjects affect my overall judgement of the image, or am I honestly able to separate the two? <br>

For example, I love models (and women in general) with small breasts, long legs, and a waifish figure; the classic high-fashion model figure. Some people like large breasts, and a more beefy, hour-glass figure, and so on.<br>

So the question is, can you judge an image by its merits, regardless of how much you like the model or not, or does she/he highly affect your overall judgement? Or, should we even be trying to separate the two? Maybe the model, her looks (your interpretation of what a model should look like in terms of her beauty and shape) are simply an integral part of the image that makes it what it is?<br>

An interesting dilemma, is it not? Your thoughts?</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5007888"><em>Michael C</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Nov 28, 2009; 10:22 a.m.</em><br>

<em>I wonder how many of us are able (or even capable) of separating the model(s) from the overall image when we make a judgement of it? This question would apply to Nudes, Portraiture, Fashion and some miscellaneous images.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, let me make it really simple. After years (decades) of eye training, a person should be able to tell just by looking if the art is "correct".<br>

There's no "separation" involved, the art is viewed ("judged") as a whole.<br>

Years of training, sure, but it all comes down to that.<br>

In case you have any doubts, here's how someone else put it.......<br>

<em></em><br>

<em>"When I have to think about it, I know the picture is wrong... My instinct about painting says, "If you don't think about it, it's right." As soon as you have to decide and choose, it's wrong. And the more you decide about, the more wrong it gets." </em><br>

<em>Andy Warhol</em></p>

<p>And that's that.....</p>

<p>Bill P</p>

[mike dixon]

<p><strong><em>And that's that.....</em> </strong></p>

<p>I guess I should just close the thread now. What more could there possibly be to say on the topic?</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>what more indeed? LOL</p>

<p>oh wait, what about this:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>After years (decades) of eye training, a person should be able to tell just by looking if the art is "correct".</p>

</blockquote>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Michael typed: "</strong> So the question is, can you judge an image by its merits, regardless of how much you like the model or not"</p>

<p>Yes, I can. There's plenty of pictures of models I like that I wouldn't take a free 20x30 print of, but I would kill (figuratively speaking) for one of Irving Penn's pics of the voluptuous models.</p>

<p>http://www.salon.com/sex/gallery/2002/02/01/penn/portfolio.html</p>

<p>" or does she/he highly affect your overall judgement?"</p>

<p>Very, very, little other than as a person in the frame.</p>

<p>"Or, should we even be trying to separate the two?"</p>

<p>WE? That would be up to you. For me, it depends. If it's something that would fall in the "beauty" category, I suppose the model would matter. Thank God I've never had to judge a contest of those, or in the PN galleries.</p>

<p>"Maybe the model, her looks (your interpretation of what a model should look like in terms of her beauty and shape) are simply an integral part of the image that makes it what it is?"</p>

<p>What should a model look like? When? Where? To sell what? My interpretation is just that, not necessarily an integral part of the image itself.</p>

<p>[Can't wait till Rebecca weighs in on this one.]</p>

<p>"An interesting dilemma, is it not?</p>

<p>Dilemma?</p>

<p>Your thoughts?"</p>

<p>I think we in the Philosophy Forum have somehow offended the universe.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>My answer: A little of this and a little of that.</p>

<p>I generally respond to a photograph and how well the photo works . . . <em>given the subject</em>. So I consider the subject and the handling (style, technique, execution, context) of the photo as they relate to each other. A portrait is a photograph of a person. The person is not the be-all and end-all but neither can I ignore the person in favor of just looking at photographic handling, style, and technique.</p>

<p>I tend to respond before I judge, so the judging is not necessarily primary for me.</p>

<p>Usually the "looks" of the subject <em>per se</em> and whether I find the subject attractive or not is not of that much consequence in reacting to the photo itself. It will be more about how the looks of the person are handled and presented by the photographer.</p>

<p>Sometimes, though, looks themselves are quite significant. I've worked with a couple of guys where their looks were very integral to the photos and their looks are at least as responsible for reactions to the photos as whatever I as the photographer may have done. I think some people are more photogenic than others and will elicit a certain type of response somewhat naturally from most viewers. That being said, it is helpful that I recognize this in the few rare people I've worked with who have that "look" and photograph them accordingly. Marlene Dietrich comes to mind as having a certain look that is significant even beyond what a photographer does with her. Her persona is much of the appeal and intrigue. She's got something. Johnny Depp, too.</p>

<p>It's not as if we can just abstract away the look a certain subject has. The looks of the subject are right there in the photo. Why ignore them? At the same time, if that look guides our total response to the photo, we are likely to have missed most about the photo that's significant. I would think a pretty superficial experience of a portrait would focus only on the particular looks of the model and dismiss the way the model is photographed. But I can't deny, as a photographer especially, the physicality of each of the people I work with and the way in which that, as well as their personality and inner being, guides me.</p>

<p>Michael, I think you're recognizing something significant in understanding the kinds of attractions viewers (and photographers) have to certain people. There's nothing wrong with being up front about that and working with it. There's also nothing wrong with moving beyond it when possible and when one wants to.</p>

<p>I tend often to separate personal response from judging. I may have a certain gut response to a certain look, which I try never to deny. Yet, in "judging" and/or critiquing a work, I will often move beyond my own personal response in order to see just what the photographer may have been expressing or trying to express. I'd hate to limit his or her expression to my particular response. It's bigger than me. Also, my immediate gut response can be different from the response I have with a little more time and distance.</p>

<p>Bill, you've used the word "correct" here (and in other forums, if I'm not mistaken) in talking about art and photography. I don't know what you (or Warhol) mean by that.</p>

[wmc718]

<p>All of you are presenting some very interesting points. In being as honest as I can be, I do feel that I can spot at least many of the good things (both technical and artistic) in an image. You probably feel the same way.<br>

I also have to admit that I sometimes think to myself how much better a particular image might be had the model been more to my liking. I have also at times found myself giving more credit to an image than I probably should just because the model is more to my liking. Have you ever experienced this? <br>

While I'm not sure that William's (and Andy Warhol's) declaration are all encompassing, in general, there does seem to be some credence to our initial "instinct" to an image being the right one. <br>

Conversely, I have also found myself (and perhaps you have too) intially not liking an image, but feel drawn to come back and look at it again and again and ultimately loving it. <br>

All subjective points to be sure, but interesting to ponder nonetheless. And I'd love to hear more of yours!</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>So the question is, can you judge an image by its merits,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sometimes the merit of a photograph <em>is</em> the subject, is it not? Many of you may recall the image of a very striking looking Afghan girl that appeared on the cover of National Geographic years ago. At the time it appeared, I was interested in neither National Geographic, nor photography, but the image made a lasting impression nevertheless. </p>

<p>I think the reason that I am looking at a photograph has a lot to do with my reaction to the model. If I'm thumbing through my wife's* Vanity Fair, I may come across an image that interests me, whether it be an ad or an article. If it strikes me because the model is of a physical type that attracts me, my reaction is based simply on that which I find attractive. More often than not, however, I'm looking at images that impress me from an <strong>artistic</strong> standpoint. That's a word dreadfully fraught with the possibility of misunderstanding, but I honestly can't think of a better one. I guess a better way to put it is that I look for images that are artistically interesting to me. It's more a matter of light and interest in the scene presented that grabs me, not the model. To be honest I find many glamour shots, and almost all nudes, unimpressive and, particularly in the case of nudes, possessed of a stultifying sameness that bores me. If I'm looking for strictly prurient stimulation, well, that's a different set of criteria altogether and in that case the model is of primary interest.</p>

<p>Another thing I might want to consider is the photographer's purpose. If it's a glamour shot then the model may play a large role, but if I find it a well done shot the level of my personal attraction to the model's look or physical characteristics does not matter. </p>

<p>(*notice how cleverly I worked that in? God forbid anyone should think it's <em>mine)</em></p>

<p> </p>

[mizore]

 

<blockquote>

[Can't wait till Rebecca weighs in on this one.]

</blockquote>

<p>I think that documenting things of beauty is a legitimate use of a camera, just not art. And Billie Piper is hot.</p>

 

 

<p>When I took <a href="../photo/6289572&size=lg">this</a>, I worried that I was intruding on the woman's private pain. She knew I was taking the picture. A female friend said that she thought the photo showed a different kind of beauty, that the woman in the photo was beautiful in her own way. Dunno. </p>

<p>I think a person who can't see anything but the sensual allure of a photograph of a person of the attractive sex is missing things.</p>

<p>Perhaps the best photographers break down that erotic documentary expectation and get us to see further, like the woman's face looking severe in the glamor shot in the fantasy series.</p>

<p>Most contemporary shots of women that aspire to glamor tend to make the women in them look very artificial to me and fail at documentation and so at hotness. One woman somewhere else pointed out that all women can tell when breasts have been pumped full of silicone. We all know what natural breasts look like.</p>

<p>For years, archeologists thought the Paleolithic Venus sculptures had to have been about fertility until a woman calculated how much time went into carving the headdresses compared to carving the body. Guys never considered the headdresses as important, but carving it took much more time than carving the body. The woman archeologist suggests that the Venuses were like Vogue, not like Playboy, and what was documented were how to do headdresses, not "oh, hot, oh hot, fat and fertile."</p>

<p>So we get at least four different ways of reading photographs of nubile women and men.</p>

 

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>One of the pleasant surprises of photographing people, and particularly men of my own (mid-50s) age group, is that doing so has made me more physically and sexually attracted to those men. For me, more and more it's not about viewing or photographing the person I'm attracted to (as if who I'm attracted to is a static matter), it's about being or becoming attracted to the person I'm photographing. Photographing has significantly changed my attractions, what turns me on, what I find beautiful . . . I am finding something so compelling in older bodies . . . curves, weathering, patina . . .</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I sympathize with what the OP, Michael C, is saying.</p>

<p>I don't enjoy -- don't like, am unhappy -- looking at some otherwise beautiful male nude Greco-Roman statuary simply because I find the private parts* of the particular statue to be strange, unfortunate, repellent, impossible to overlook -- not to my preference (the specific nature of which preference I am not prepared to reveal**).</p>

<p>I doubt that any of us, whether we confess it or not, ever overcome our inherited tribal preferences for particular phenotypes. I think it's admirable that we try to suppress them, and (after failing in the attempt) that we take them into account -- compensate for them -- in our treatment of other people.</p>

<p>* genitalia<br>

** they're about the same as Goldilocks's</p>

[wmc718]

<p>I am really enjoying your responses... very enlightening. And yes Steve, you did slip *that one in very cleverly!</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Michael, how would you "judge" the following photograph (optical recording):</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M104_ngc4594_sombrero_galaxy_hi-res.jpg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M104_ngc4594_sombrero_galaxy_hi-res.jpg</a></p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>...or this one:</p>

<p><a href="http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/normandy-landings/">http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/normandy-landings/</a></p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Up to a level, I think you could/can seperate the two; composition, use of colour, choice of light etc. can all be "judged" (sounds a bit condemning, by the way) without actually discussing the subject. And the subject can be discussed without considering the other merits of a photograph.</p>

<p>But frankly, if the whole picture does not grab me in one way or another, I won't bother with either. And that "grabbing" is just plain intuitive 'yes/no' without too much pondering.</p>

<p>So I see it a bit as a 2-stage process, which actually works the same in my "workflow". First I throw out what I do not like at all, or what failed. This goes really fast and easy. What is left is judged on its merits to make a finer selection. Takes much longer. I guess it's a perfectly normal way to address it.</p>

[nuno_saldanha]

<p>I dont think the merit lies on the subject of a camera, but the way you(we) see it. And the boundaries between Aesthetic and sexual appeal are very confusing to some people. Just take a look at the general preferences when it regards the picture they look and vote... in wich category do you think they go to?</p>

[johnathan1]

<p>a good image is one you print as a 5x7, a great image is one that hangs on your wall. If you are shooting a hot model and the rest of what you did that day went wrong, the images more than likely still suck. An image can only be judged by the effect it has on you and others. Like Wouter I use stages of judging. mine is more of a 4-5 stage process. nocking down many images until I have a few. Some images regardless of lighting, composition have a tendency to grab you and make you look over and over. Is it an image that you may show the client/customer? . Absolutely. If is catching your eye, it may catch theirs to. Is it an image your going to brag about to other photographers, probably not because they will flame you for missing something. Because we as photographers tend to have an "eye" for such things we can speak out about it. I am far from perfect, but it is pretty dang easy for me to tell you what appeals to me</p>

[mizore]

<p>Fred, regarding using photography to develop a stronger interest in the subject of the photography, that's probably related to what my friend said about everyone having their own kind of beauty. </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>If all the photographer's got going on in the image is the prettiness of his model, he needs to try again.</p>

<p>I may just be stone cold to the world, but nudity or prettiness just doesn't cut it for me anymore. There's a difference between what I see in a photograph and what life is actually like. An overwhelming majority of the many people I've seen in person, in varying states of undress, have really not been that good looking. </p>

<p>Head on over to any lineup of nude photos and ask yourself: who placed the subject dead center? </p>

<p>Eliminate those. Now, what's left? </p>

<p>Maybe an interesting photo is left in there.</p>

<p>So many photographers place pretty women dead center in the frame; with the model occupying about 75% of the image's surface area, that this tactic, by itself, I find makes the whole picture uninteresting. Nothing sucks the power and functionality out of a subject quite like placing it dead center and making that most of the picture.</p>

<p>If they have a pretty model, and the only thing going on in the picture is the prettiness of the model, then I think in a lot of instances, the photographer just failed. Weston's nudes, for example, filled the frame with nude forms for some of those photos, but there was more from the photo than just the prettiness of the model. </p>

<p>If it was a flower or a dog, placed dead center, facing front, filling 80% of the frame, and there was nothing else there but the appearance of the dog or the flower, would you think it was an excellent photo? Sometimes yes; a lot of the time, no. </p>

<p>If we use the guidelines of composition to build a good photo, a good photo will be made better, no matter what the subject. Even if the subject is a pretty model.</p>

[mizore]

<p>Most nude photos aren't art; they're documentation or fakery, which is hypocrisy paying the usual respects to idealism.</p>

<p>There's one Mapplethorpe, reproduced in Barthe's book <em>Camera Lucida, </em>that's just a face, part of a shoulder, and joyful hand. It's quite fun <a href="http://www.mapplethorpe.org/portfolios/self-portraits/"> (Second self portrait)</a> </p>

<p>I think the most memorable strictly porn shot I've ever seen was a woman's head and upper shoulders, wearing clothes, with an erect male organ in front of the face, below her eyes, which were very direct and focused on the camera. Male vulnerablity, reduction to just the sexual organs; female steeliness. The closest shot for that effect in polite photography was Annie Leibovitz's shot of John Lennon, naked, clinging to Yoko Ono, clothed. I seriously doubt the porn photographer had anything in mind more than documenting the scene (I used to hang out with anti-spam people, one of whom was a serious amateur photographer, and we knew some of the spammer's work -- though this one wasn't from one of the usual suspects).</p>

<p>Technically, perhaps not properly composed to go along with its other improprieties, but a striking image. Sometimes the emotional content of an image does have more power than its compositional flaws would suggest, though the horizontal element was about a third down the frame. The typical documentary/fake nudes tend to be cliches in composition and in subject matter. Yeah, nobody looks quite like that in RL. Body makeup isn't all that common on most real people. Most of the women don't appear to have personalities, which may be the point for some guys. </p>

<p>Fred's work has been very interesting because it's where I haven't gone in my own work.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I just saw a photo by Bruce Cahn that I thought was a nude with good composition. For an example of that, here's a link to his photo: http://www.photo.net/photo/10262576</p>

[mrraz]

<p>It's taken me a few of years on various photo sites to get past my personal prejudices and preferences when judging and evaluating a photograph. I can't say it was an easy process. Old habits die very hard, but I have been by and large successful. I can now look at a photograph and get past subject matter that is generally repulsive, personally offensive, unintelligible or personally uninteresting. I try to understand what the photographer was trying to achieve with a particular visual statement, and whether he or she was able to use the creative process successfully.</p>

<p>"After years (decades) of eye training, a person should be able to tell just by looking if the art is "correct"."</p>

<p>Obviously, we are all not as gifted as you William. Even with my years/decades of working as a photographer as well as a painter, sculptor and potter I cannot claim to have trained my eye to the level you profess. I have to use judgments akin to the photographic grey scale. So rarely is an image either black, perfect or white, total failure. It falls somewhere into the shades of grey in between.</p>

<p>Your quote of Andy Warhol used to justify a leap from a painting being "right" to art being "correct" may be a stretch I am unable or unwilling to make.</p>

[wmc718]

<p>Paul, I checked the two images you referred to. Well, I know nothing about space shots, but the galaxie looked pretty good to me. The landing at Normandy has some obvious technical flaws, but it stirs up emotions because of what it represents. It's also very busy, which engages the viewer. I would have to think awhile before I could assign numbers to them. Why do you ask?<br>

Wouter, I think your comments about workflow hold a lot of merit, and the act of culling out our own images could be another thread altogether!<br>

Keep you comments coming folks!</p>

[alfred]

<p>Most theories about making judgment on art is about describing what we actually see, then we try to identify the artist idea/concept about his/her work, and at last we make judgments about light, composition and content of the work.<br>

There are other approaches, but this is the overral used.<br>

Judging a nude photo, pure nature or a journalistic photo, is all about the same. What do we actually see? What is the artist's intention by his/her work? How is the composition and content?<br>

A beautiful model (and this term is certainly without rights and wrongs, the scale is broad...) will not make a terrible photo better. It's just a terrible photo of a model that some might find beautiful.<br>

A great photo of a terrible model will still be great...The photographer will be able to add style and attitude to his/her image and the model will appear as at least "interesting"if not even beautiful.<br>

In my opinion a great photo-shot will always include personal approach, style, attitude and a balanced composition that adds to the story.<br>

-alfred-</p>

 

[wmc718]

<p>Good point Alfred!</p>