Why (when) is a photo "good"

[aplumpton]

<p>"I find the whole discussion on "good", "bad", "like", "don't like" fairly limited and threatens to lead us nowhere - apart from towards the often mentioned declaration that all that is subjective and that my own feelings about a picture is what counts. I think we can do better than that. (Anders)</p>

<p><strong>Anders,</strong></p>

<p>To achieve that, I would like to see as a first step a forum discussion in which someone may present a photograph that he considers good, one which accomplishes what he or she wanted to communicate. No title, no explanation, just the image. The members of this forum would then interpret that photograph as they see it. Their perceived "what, why and how""what it says to them", if anything, would result from that. After a certain number of replies and comments, the poster would then express what he or she had in mind, the "what, why and how" of their photograph, as they attempted to create.</p>

<p>These subjective, and perhaps partly objective, impressions would do a lot for the photographer, I think. They would suggest how close he might have come achieving his or her objective. With that information, the photographer could, if he (or she) wished, modify his approach, or improve it to better achieve what he was thinking when he captured the image and later post-processed it.</p>

<p><strong>Fred, Julie,</strong></p>

<p>I am not convinced of the usefulness of the approach of putting up what are thought as failed images by the photographer, because I think it will not be as valuable as obtaining the perceptions of the viewer of what the photographer considers a good photograph. Unless he is a novice photographer, he usually knows only too well the failures of the image, and is not presenting his or her better work, which is likely more related to his or her philosophy and approach.</p>

<p>By interpreting the message of a good photograph, without the prior explanations of the creator, we are providing the photographer more support and providing what I think is the most useful feedback (how do others actually perceive what I am trying to do? I can go on at length about what I think of my work, but ultimately it is the viewer that is important), whereras how another photographer would (subjectively) modify a bad image really only gives the viewer's manner of achieving a result. Not the photographer's.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>Lucky fellow. Enjoy your trip.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Arthur, I agree that we lack a forum where individuals present their own photos in order to let them be analyzed and "judged" by peers here on PN not in terms of how it could be better, but in term of "good"/"bad" with explicitly formulated criteria and explanations. For it not to be just another "critique forum" it would have to have some initial reasons for presenting a photo. For example a photo that have received 7/7 and the photographer finds it "bad" - or maybe more frequently the other way round. It could be linked to the rating exercise which finally then could have some meaning.<br>

I'm not sure this present forum is the most obvious place for such discussions. It is my opinion that this forum has to a certain degree lately become a forum of "why I shot the photo and how I feel about it". It is therefor not obviously a forum ready for such discussion unless there is a willingness to change its present way of functioning. But it might be worth a try. </p>

[luis_g]

<p> Arthur, it is obvious that almost everyone on PN seems starved for having their work critiqued/rated. If we were to do reviews of member's pictures here, it might run contrary to the inherent compartmentalization one sees on PN. And other PN members would soon inundate us, seeking to have their pictures reviewed (think Polaroid riot). Plus, thin-skinned members might be easily offended by the reviews, or psychophants would deliver adulating ones, etc.</p>

<p> All of these problems can be sidestepped easily in my opinion by using the work of others (total outsiders) to critique (any way they want to), and putting one up per thread, and see what happens.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Anders and Luis, you may well be right about the repercussions of analysing another's work in this forum (by the differing methods suggested by Fred and myself), but what is missing from the Photo.Net rating/critique system, in my mind, is the question of the connection between philosophy (and mental approach) and photography, and from the Photonetter's viewpoint. How to bypass the ratings system and its often simply laudatory comments, and seek the viewer's opinion on what the photo communicates to him, then the photographer's outlook or approach on the same, as a valuable feedback for the engaged and progressing photographer? </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Luis, I'm sure you are right that their is a danger that</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"other PN members would soon inundate us, seeking to have their pictures reviewed"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>but we could have rule on one photo very week (a voluntarist photo of the week initiative).</p>

<p>When Arthur writes that</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"what is missing from the Photo.Net rating/critique system, in my mind, is the question of the connection between philosophy (and mental approach) and photography"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>personally I could not disagree more. In my view, as mentioned above, it is almost the only dimension that this forum seems to cover for the moment. I think sincerely that we need to go beyond mental processes and approach the photo itself : theme, composition, lines, color pallets, sharp/blur, reference-elements to its realities, signs, frame, timing - all the elements that make a scene and a photo and that we decide on, or not, when shooting. These many elements of a photo have surely an impact on "mental processes" that might make us like the photo or not (good/bad) but an analysis cannot stay on that level of introspection.<br>

Without starting a discussion on a specific photo let me attach an example which surely would get its dose of 3/3s here on PN and that might deserve an analysis. </p><div></div>

[je ne regrette rien]

<blockquote><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2071139">Anders Hingel</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 10, 2010; 11:43 a.m.

<p>Luckily, Luca, nobody <strong>owns the truth on photography</strong> but some have power to decide. In PN the ratings system is indeed such a system, which on the basis of member's subjective understanding of a few criteria, rates photos that then, in case, end up on the top rated photos list. These photos are the show cases of PN to present how good PN and its photographers are.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree that in principle nobody owns the truth on photography. Unfortunately some behave as if they had.</p>

[dan_south]

Interesting exercise - ask people pick the best photo from a gallery and have them tell you why they think it is the best.

Different people will pick different photos and some of the comments will be insightful. If you want to up the ante ask some

kids to do it. Kids have very atrong opinions and have absolutely no problem telling you when they think you're full of it.

[Julie H]

<p><strong>Anders</strong>,</p>

<p>What is that, anyway? I definitely don't like it very much and I am not sure I can make it "good" but I am prepared to claim that I have moved it from 3/3 to 3.001/3.001. It really doesn't want to fly ...<br>

<img src="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/anderspic02.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>"what is missing from the Photo.Net rating/critique system, in my mind, is the question of the connection between philosophy (and mental approach) and photography"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"personally I could not disagree more. In my view, as mentioned above, it is almost the only dimension that this forum seems to cover for the moment." (Anders)</p>

<p>Anders, I have to disagree fully with your statement. What you want to consider seems to be approach related and technical in nature. For me, that is largely (but not completely) nuts and bolts, and why I have always maintained that a sub-forum of PofP could treat that subject and also that of the mental approaches. As that is not likely to happen, we must use either the philosophy forum or the present ratings/critique forum. The latter does not often deal with an analysis of the communicative elements of the image. The former discusses the philosophical and mental approaches, but not so much in regard to how the viewer (other PofP participant) perceives the essence of the image of the photographer who posts his image in this forum, and more often than not, discusses simply the images of other photographers not on the forum.</p>

<p>I agree that much can also be learned by analysing the images made by past masters or even non Photo.Net current ones, but I am interested mainly in how fellow photographers perceive the message of my own work, in order to aid my own progress in the medium. And I would be happy to do that analysis for others, but mainly from a standpoint of not having a prior statement from the photographer, interpreting what I see, and then learning after the process what he meant when creating his image - what he thought one would take away from it. It's communication with others.</p>

<p>Let's take your image above. Because we know nothing else about it or why you photographed it, it satisies the above suggested analytical/critique process I suggested. Your image does satisfy my curiosity and liking for well toned black and white reproduction - the silvery grays for instance are nice, on that simple level. I presume it to be an architectural detail and maybe an element of sound baffling in some concert hall - but it's just a guess. More important, whatever it is, it does nothing for me in terms of a visual, emotional or other communication, and thus doesn't satisfy something my deeper curiosity or aesthetic - It says very little to me and I'm afraid I find it just a cold image of less than appealing composition. </p>

<p>Another person might have a very different feeling about it. This is all very subjective, as you well know. What I think is important is that the communicative aspects of the image need to be treated more here than the technical aspects or compositional rule compliances. And I disagree that that is what we are doing on this forum, in a manner at least that ties the philosophical, emotional, mental thought processes of the Photo.Net photographer with his work and which allows that to be perceived or not by the viewer-participant of this forum and to provide valuable feedback. Such feedback is not what one is normally getting on the ratings/critique forum, or here. And it's bloody important to have.</p>

<p> </p>

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

<p>To me, a photo is good when it tells a story with a single glance... and then intrigues the viewer to look closer to see what else it says.</p>

<p>If it does not capture your interest with a thumbnail view, the compostion is not compelling.</p>

[pnital]

<p>Julie, Fred, and all of you please look here:<br /><br />http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=617763<br /><br /> It was a group years ago ,that worked on the subject of critique anonymously ,not knowing who the photo belonged to. Not only critiquing but trying to see how it can be enhanced. It was a great school. Observe it a bit,I think it is more or less what Fred and Julie offered.I think as well that a "bad " photo ,( in the photographer's/ viewer eyes) is not a photo which is worth working on, if it has not a priory a potential to get better.....<br /> (I don't know why the link is not blue...(explanation what I do wrong....? Thanks)</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>Julie</strong>, I fully respect your appreciation of a shot like this. Personally, I love it and might be the only one on Earth. It hangs on a wall in A3+ format and represent the dome of the German Parliament (inside). It is interesting, because the only thing you do to it, without hope of improving it, is turning it 180°, which destroys the composition totally for me. It is however, I think a good example of how our eyes are seeing different things when looking at an abstracts like that. Things become easier and more straight forward if I choose a picture of a scene we all can recognize and relate to like <a href="../photo/8508946&size=lg">this one</a> or <a href="../photo/6710129">this one</a> whether they are considered good or bad.</p>

<p><strong>Dan</strong>, asking people to pick best photos from a gallery would be interesting in my eyes, but difficult to make function. How do we choose a gallery and how do we engage the photographer in the exercise. The Photo of the week forum functions with that logic and it is the elves that choose. Sometimes, that forum functions perfectly, despite the very many contributions with a minimum number of words and more often than not, superlatives.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur </strong>if you read out of my previous mail that I want "technical discussions" I must have expressed myself very badly. I happens, sorry. I have no intention of promoting technical discussions about photography, there are other places for that. What I tried to argue for was a discussion on the medium, the photo, and less a continuing discussion on what happens in my head when I look at a photo, or when I shot it. Your head is surely a starting point, but less interesting for others unless you the person is the subject of discussion. Attention, emotion, interest of the viewer is the starting point. What is lacking here in this forum, in my view, is a place where we translate such starting points into observations on the dimensions of the photo that produces such effects on our appreciation of a photo - and here I come back to the questions of composition etc. Such an exercise is traditionally done on other forms of art (paintings, sculptures, installations...) - like on this painting of<a href="http://www.impressionism-art.org/data/media/115/derain-andre-04.jpg"> André Derain</a>, just to take an example for illustation among many others.</p>

<p>Concerning your comments on the photos that I took the risk to upload above, again like in the case of Julie's comments, they show how different our eyes work. Julie turned it around and destroyed it in my eyes, and you refer to it's "<strong>less than appealing composition</strong>". This is where things become interesting because there you touch at how the photo is constructed, as an abstract, with the result of communicating some reactions and emotions. Maybe the chosen photo is more of a provocation (I expected it!). Less extreme examples could have been chosen, as mentioned above.<br>

Like<strong> Pnina</strong> writes, a "bad" photo might not be worth working on together. It needs to catch the immediate attention of the viewer that <strong>L.J.</strong> refers to, and be subject to some kind of shared interest for it to function as a subject of discussion, like the ones we all seem to agree on is needed here on PN.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<blockquote><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a> , Aug 10, 2010; 10:25 a.m.

<p>Can we accept that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Most people would place more value on a technically awful photo of their child or pet than some highly crafted photo of something or someone that they don't know. And that not quite horrible beach photo that they took on their honeymoon means more to them than any Ansel Adams print ever will. Emotional attachment to the subject is a big factor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correct. But if, if a judgement on a photo is a mix between subjective perceptions and emotions, and collective imaginary and perceptions, the examples you make would be merely on the subjective part.<br /> Photographers on another site simply destroyed family snapshots, because of the non-existent collective value.<br /> That said, a photo which is "good" must go beyond the mere reaction of "I like it".</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Many of you suggested to give this "judgement" exercise a more practical approach. Let's take a photo and analyse why it's good or less good.<br>

I think it's not the appropriate way, provided that my original question was posted in the "Philosophy of Photography" forum and not somewhere else.</p>

<p>At this stage we have more or less agreed that there are <em>subjective </em>and <em>objective </em>elements for photo judgement. That photo judgement requires a <em>context appraisal</em> on the <em>photo </em>and the <em>photographer part</em>, as well as experience, education and recombination capability on the <em>viewer part</em> (to walk outside traditional paths).</p>

<p>Therefore I would like us to stick to the more <em>conceptual aspects</em> of photo judgement, trying to find an approach to photo judgement - the activity is much too indeterministic and non-linear to be able to stick to a "methodology".</p>

<p>Of course, talking concretely on a picture would be an empirical application of the approach to photo judgement, but I would like to keep it on another level.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Luca you are the toast master here so be free to define what this thread is about. In my eyes we are still in the realm of your main question: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>why is a photo good, which elements make it good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think that some kind of agreement on general very abstract categories (subjective, objective elements, context appraisal, and the viewer characteristics in terms of education, experience etc) leads us very far. Even if we could develop such an agreed conceptual framework for analyzing photos, few would stick to it or care to understand it.<br>

This is why I think that we need to go to the more practical phase and start discussing specific photos, here or in some other forums if needed. By such discussions we would further our shared understanding on "why is a photo good, which elements make it good" - which is your aim too.<br>

An ad hoc exploratory forum for playing around with the idea to see whether it leads us further might be something to propose to our friends deciding such things here around.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>[<em>laughing at Anders reaction to my abuse of his photo</em>]<br>

<strong>Anders</strong>,</p>

<p>I hope you will (eventually, if not today) forgive me for using your photo as an example of what I think usually happens when a photo is offered for critique. Either there is rather obscene flattery and gushing or there are unhelpful comments like those I gave ("I don't like it") accompanied by some dreadful re-editing of the photo. The nearest thing that I ever see to honest and useful critiques are done very, very, very gingerly, tentatively, obliquely; so cloaked in apologies as to be nearly useless.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if we stick to conceptual aspects with no specific personal examples, as <strong>Luca</strong> requests, we can all be above average -- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_effect">Lake Woebegone photographers</a>. I like it ...</p>

<p><strong>Pnina</strong>,</p>

<p>I found your linked page and pages linked from that to be interesting for two reasons: first, the desire to learn which is no surprise, but second that the anonymity of critique requests didn't seem to me to help at all. Quite the contrary. People seemed, in there comments to be even more nervous and restrained, presumably because they knew that the person was there, listening and it was worse, not better, not to know who it was.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I don't have to forgive you for anything Julie. I respect your comments, having seen your qualified contributions to this and other fora. What needs to be done is of course that we are ready to invest in explain the great "WHY" we have this or that appreciation of a specific photo. This is where our exchanges become interesting. Your link to the Lake Woebegone effect is clearly showing the dangers of trying to satisfy imaginative opinions of peers like our friends here on PN. If we all showed <a href="../photo/9693197">motherhood</a>-and-apply-pie pictures we would surely fast be loosing our interest. Hope that can be said here without provoking a discussion on motherhood or for the sake apple pie!</p>

<p>I do surely support showing specific "personal examples", but the discussion about such photos should not concentrate on the person (unless somebody is interested in the person as such, but it could happen by e-mails) but be a discussion on the photo and its qualifies (good/bad) seen from the viewer. The quality of <a href="http://bp0.blogger.com/_KmeU879465A/R-EhGBfJyZI/AAAAAAAAAMk/QZjRPtKy8xk/s1600-h/Picasso.Guernica2">Guernica</a> is not hidden in the fact that the painter was Spanish, lived difficultly with <a href="http://allart.biz/up/photos/album/P/Pablo%20Picasso/Legend/picasso_legend_6_portrait_de_dora_maar.jpg">Dora Maar</a> in a hotel particular in rue des Grands-Augustins in Paris end of the 30s, but in the effects on the viewer and the reference to a specific act of cruelty (the context). So, on our level, our photos have context, that might in some cases help the viewer forward (a title) but most happens in the process of viewing. This is where the good/bad crude criteria come to the fore. This is also where we can learn something from each other.</p>

<p><br />Concerning the link that <strong>Pnina</strong> kindly gave us, I must agree with Julie that anonymity does not seem to help. I think we all just have to make the big effort of accepting critics of our photos (why are we here if not for that! !) being it positive or negative, as long as a certain level civics is respected. <br /><br /></p>

[pnital]

<p>Julie and Anders<br>

I understand both your reservations, It was great at that time( at least for me), I learned a lot from that period (again, personal feeling) nowadays I know a lot more ,still learn all the time, and don't need the anonymity...(BTW it has changed later on and was continued with names ,not at PN though.;-)).<br /> <br /></p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Julie</strong>,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, if we stick to conceptual aspects with no specific personal examples, as <strong>Luca</strong> requests, we can all be above average -- <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_effect" target="_blank">Lake Woebegone photographers</a>. I like it ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let me try to be clearer. It's not that I don't want to move over to the empirical application of judgement criteria.</p>

<p>I consider my photography a <strong>craft</strong>, a concrete activity, so I can't imagine it without <strong>action</strong>. Also judgement, in itself, I consider a way of supporting photography. Knowing how to judge helps thinking when photographing, and, in the end, to take better photographs.</p>

<p>Researching <em>judgement approaches</em> helps photographing.</p>

<p>My idea of sticking in first instance to a conceptual approach relates to the development of photography-related capabilities.</p>

<p>These can be then applied to concrete cases.</p>

<p><strong>Anders</strong>, by the way, I don't want to be considered the master of this thread. Ideas have to flow freely. :-))</p>

<p>What I'm reading here interests me a lot. And for sure it's not my merit.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, turns out I have Internet access here after all, and am up early in the a.m. while everyone else is still asleep, so . . .</p>

<p>I don't like that photo you posted way back there because it's flat and doesn't reveal anything more to me as I look at it. There's no depth. It simply seems to lie there, no particular energy, dynamic, pull, or draw. As a matter of fact, the angle of shooting feels like it's keeping me away rather than drawing me in, but not in a challenging or even off-putting way (which might help me like it more), rather in just a lump of coal sort of way.</p>

<p>[in this paragraph, what's in italics has more to do with my taste, what's in roman type is more about its quality (goodness).] Regarding its "goodness," texture seems to be important to the photo and the textures are brought out well by the lighting and exposure. There's a delicate use of shadow, well done but <em>not advancing an aesthetic interest for me</em>. The composition is good insofar as it shows a conscious intention (at least an echoing of the two holes of each other) but <em>leaves me cold</em>. You handled the strong highlight well, which probably gives the photo its main dynamic charge, but again that <em>doesn't seem to really relate to the subject matter itself or the overall composition of the photo so it's like an unhinged element</em>. [Not sure, but this last part of the sentence seems maybe a little taste and a little judgment combined.]</p>

<p>When photos are submitted to this forum, I take them as illustrative of a point being discussed and try to keep my discussions of them to that. I generally don't see them as appropriate to be "critiqued," especially from a taste point of view. Here, because we are discussing taste specifically, it was important, and I was asked, to differentiate between the photo's goodness and my like or dislike of it, so I got into taste.</p>

<p>Caveat: Some will disagree with my assessment of the photo as good. That will not prove to me that "goodness" is subjective. We'd have to get into why someone else called it "not good" and what we are actually each seeing. It might be that we were expressing similar things differently or that we hadn't agreed on the parameters or the context for this kind of more objective judgment. I wouldn't expect or even attempt to achieve the same sort of agreement relative to taste. Though I think tastes can changed and be influenced and our tastes can be refined, especially with more exposure and learning.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Dern it, <strong>Fred.</strong> You're no fun to play with. You nailed it, first try.</p>

<p>That picture was made back when I got my first 4x5 camera and I was simply in love with the camera. I went out looking for things that looked like pictures. The photo posted looked like a picture (and that's why, to some shallow, superficial extent as Fred immediately spotted, it has no depth -- the longer you look at it, the less you see -- yet to the extent that it is what I intended (if looking for things that look like pictures is much of an intention) I do think it's "good").</p>

<p>Happily, I eventually got past going out and "looking for things that looked like pictures." I will add, however, that I still, to this day enjoy, sometimes just for fun and relaxation, going out and shooting "things that look like pictures." It's sort of like finger-exercises for musicians or maybe doing crossword puzzles.</p>

<p>Thanks for the spot-on analysis, Fred. You're hard to fool. *sigh*</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>The general thrust of responses are based around assessing whether a photo is good or not. But should we be looking at photos in order to establish whether they are good? Or do we look at them because we hope that we may find something in them surprising that we haven't seen before?</p>

<p>Sometimes it might be the former, but I think the latter is more productive and interesting. And if it is, then trying to establish a formula, rule, or even guidelines as to what is good and what isn't is I think not only a waste of time, but a distinctly bad thing to do. Rules, guidelines, formulae, are only useful for people who are unable to develop their own opinion and understanding of a photo.</p>

<p>There is a temptation to go for the first approach - to look at photos and judge them by our existing preconceptions. That is because we all like to think that we are experts on photography and think we know what we like and don't like what is good and what is bad. Every photographer I ever met thought they were an expert. Approaching each photo to say whether it is 'good' or 'bad' makes each of us a judge, which puts us in a superior position. Every tabloid reader is able to say 'this is rubbish' or 'I know what I like', without pausing to think whether their taste is defined by ignorance and visual illiteracy or on the contrary based on some real kind of insight.</p>

<p>It seems to me that a more intelligent approach to analysing photography is to approach it with as open a mind as we can manage, and to try to <strong>understand</strong> the photograph, not immediately try to assess it. There may be a reason why it is what it is that is not immediately obvious. Later, after thinking about it and doing your very best to understand, then you can file it in your mind as crap, not so crap, good or brilliant - or just interesting - if you want.</p>

<p>But it seems to me that the whole approach of trying to define 'what is a good photo?' is really the cart pushing the horse.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>My last response was partly prompted because I've been going to a monthly meeting of photographers who each put up 4 or 5 photos on a theme. Then we all discuss each in turn and have a big discussion/argument about what we think is good/bad about each series.</p>

<p>I was struck that very often I start off by looking at some work, and thinking 'that is nothing interesting'. By the end of the evening, having argued about it, my opinion of it is transformed, and I realise that it has a lot of worth after all. Other items, on the contrary, after an initial favourable impression, my opinion of it goes downhill after the discussion.</p>

<p>Of course, I'm heavily influenced by the discussion - and some people believe that you should be able to assess a picture just by looking at it - that you shouldn't have to talk about it, or read any text about it. To me that is just an example of a meaningless 'rule' about what is good and bad, that is counterproductive. I don't believe it - I think there is nothing wrong with a photo having a title, or an accompanying text, or that its impact and meaning is transformed when you are told some background information about it, or that you start to appreciate it after discussing it and understanding what the photographer was trying to do, or that it grows on you six months later, or after you've seen the res of the photographer's work and started to understand where he/she is coming from.</p>

<p>To me that's much more important than being able to stick a picture up in an online gallery and have people say 'this is good because...' or 'this is bad because...'. To me, that approach is meaningless, and the main reason that I don't bother posting images on sites with galleries where there is a risk of these superficial assessments or point scoring systems.</p>

 

[AJHingel]

<p>Simon to a certain degree I agree with you that the above repeated wording "good/bad" is in it self a bad wording for describing what we all seem to discuss. I don't think anybody here would be satisfied with a labeling exercise (like the rating system). What we look for is some kind of argument on why we, each of us individually, like or dislike a photo and why we find it good or bad or, and mostly, anything in between. Fred's (welcome back!) analysis of the photo of Julie is a good example of such argumentary.<br>

Whether discussions explaining a photo is the way forward as you suggest, I'm not convinced. To a certain degree a photo cannot travel with explanations. It needs to live its own life and be "judged" by others, the viewers, according to what it can transmit by its inherent qualities. It is those qualities, or lack of the same, that we especially should concentrate on I would think. </p>