How do you evaluate your photos ?

[amirali]

<p>I know that people have been talking about this subject for ages, however I do not think that it is possible to talk about this matter enough. Here I am <strong>not</strong> looking for a definite answer as I believe there is no single correct answer to this question. I just want to know what you guys are finding interesting in photos and what measures you use which would make a photo a keeper or make it another shot which you won't present as your work. You might think this question is too broad. Feel free to narrow it down and answer in specific areas.<br>

Cheers</p>

[justin_stott]

<p>It is a little like trying to describe that fifth taste, umami, you know it's there, but not totally sure why!</p>

<p>For me, it's a gut thing, if the image has an immediate impact on some level or another, that makes it a keeper or not. After deciding if I like it, then I look towards why, composition, color placement, etc. sometimes they work because they follow rules, sometimes they work because they break them, and sometimes they just work!</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>Well, speaking for myself...the photo must have relevance to what I am trying to document. Does it put the subject in a "good light". That is, if its a candid shot, will the person in the shot be ok with how they look in the final photo.</p>

<p>I take into account the technical aspects, Is it sharp enough for the intended output? Does the composition work? Color, lighting...you get the idea.</p>

<p>So basicly, if the execution is good and the photo is relevant and not redundant, its a keeper. There are times that techincal aspects can take a back seat...</p>

<p>I was doing some family Christmas shots for nice couple. I was taking some shots of their little girl. I was using a 70-200 f2.8 at f2.8, so DOF was a bit shallow for baby shots. All of a sudden(when I was not completely ready) she stood up and took her very first steps. I fired off a set of shots as quickly as I could when I realized these were her first steps. I got a couple of shots but they were little out of focus. Not real bad, but enough that normally would have trashed them. I did not post the shots in their gallery because did not want folks to think that was my normal work quality. However I did give the couple a copy to do what what they wanted.</p>

<p>This is mostly for event type work.</p>

<p>Jason </p>

[douglasely]

<p>Good day,</p>

<p>I hope - for me and others - to have the emotional response viewing the print that I had viewing the subject. Excitement, peace, calm, surprise, joy, pain, etc.</p>

<p>Best, D</p>

 

[amirali]

<p>For myself it is first the composition. If it works then I look at if it shows what I wanted to show and I also look at light, color, gesture, sharpness, noise and etc.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Ditto, what Douglas said. My first priority is an emotional response. Especially humor - tho' it doesn't need to be hah-hah funny. Quirky or grotesque humor is fine.</p>

<p>Technique is secondary to me, in my own photos or those I see when viewing the critiques/ratings queues. I see plenty of technically proficient photos that don't move me at all. I can't think of anything to say other than "Apply this technical proficiency to more interesting subject matter." Which probably wouldn't help anyone so I don't say it.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>There is a time element in the equation, that is, if I hang the picture on the wall, does there come a time when I can't live with it any longer? If it passes that test then it's a good picture. As to what that factor is, I don't really know, but some pictures never age.</p>

[philipward]

Douglas and Lex have nailed it for me.Emotion is the key.To qoute Ansel Adams as best as I can remember its "Better a sharp idea in a fuzzy photo than a fuzzy idea in a sharp photo" and he was the master of technique.Of course with family snaps it"s a completly different ballgame.Fuzzy idea/photos are trumped by memories everytime.

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>How do you evaluate your photos ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't evaluate my photos, they evaluate me.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I usually hope to have a very different emotional response to the photo than to the stuff I was taking the picture of. I tend to respond to photos that are transformative rather than representative.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Don't we all Fred, but transformative for one might be representative for another.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I usually hope to have a very different emotional response to the photo than to the stuff I was taking the picture of. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree completely with Fred. I don't really want to show the emotional response I had when shooting. And many of my photos don't look what anyone might have seen when they were at the scene.</p>

<p>What I'm most interested in is whether it's consistent with any of the series that I have running. If it works as a stand-alone photo, I'm not necessarily interested, because everything is organized in my mind into series. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Fuzzy idea/photos are trumped by memories everytime.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed, but from all the slick looking photography of every day events I've come across lately I'm beginning to be inclined to think when those cherished family memories look too much like they came off an ad as stock photography for a corporate pediatrics or pharmaceutical company there's something lost or missing from a personal "feely" standpoint.</p>

<p>Don't know if I'm getting my point across but I'm beginning to appreciate more the off color, poor exposure, crooked off center composing of shots of the family as more personal along the order of "Awkward Family Photos" over the "This Photo Came With The Frame" pro look. But then I wouldn't want to throw away shots of family memories just because it looked like a professional took it. This has been bugging me since I started seeing a lot of really good looking shots of personal events that in the past used to be screwed up at the one hour photo.</p>

<p>Wedding albums I've seen recently with these slick, high end looking shots does something to my perception of the way I feel about that moment that I'ld never expected. Anyone get what I'm talking about.</p>

<p>I paid a visit to a government employee's office a couple of weeks ago and noticed all the gorgeous "National Geographic" quality prints of what looked like shots of trips to Africa. There was a series hung along the wall of perfectly composed and exposed prints that I thought were office decoration from some furniture store. The office employee said she'ld taken them on her trip to Africa.</p>

<p>I just got this weird feeling after hearing that and I'm not sure why.</p>

<p> </p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>It is really hard to say, as you expected. I could describe it in photos by showing what I have liked in others' images for instance some of my' most admired photos', or what are they called, from others work on PN I tag on my home page. The subjects are different, so it is not all nudes or flowers or landscape, but they all I guess share something that draws me back, even today and no matter how many times I have seen the images. They are fulfilling whatever that means. So I guess "lasting power" would be one standard. <br>

Putting it another way,something in them continues to evoke an enjoyment response, that compels me to look closer, to look again. How to take that thought into more words sure doesn't come easily.</p>

[jtk]

<p>My work has been increasingly intentional for the past few years. That is to say, if I go somewhere to make a photo it's because I intend to find something that I believe is there. I don't go to see what I'll find.</p>

<p>It's an intentional adventure, maybe even a matter of paying dues, not "beauty" or social comment. It's something about inevitable circumstances. Another way of saying this is that I think I know when, where and how I'll get lucky. I don't need to "evaluate" so much as to do. The fact that I did what I intended means it was a success.</p>

<p>I did a two-year-delayed portrait today, stumbled into another as a result...and I'd known for the two years that by making that portrait another would follow...but I didn't expect to do both in one day.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>A photo can appeal on an intellectual level, an emotional level, or both. A photo is good on an intellectual level if it tells me something, if it's informative, or if it makes the point that I wanted it to make. It is good on an emotional level obviously if it moves me. Technical quality is important, but if a photo does the above, I can excuse some technical imperfection.</p>

<p>Then there are photos that I like but couldn't tell you why I like them.</p>

[Larry_G1664882113]

<p>This is a most difficult question. I agree that emotional impact is critical as is knowing that you have captured what you set out to do. Beyond all this, we must continuously learn to improve our photographic vision - how we see each image we create and how we understand what the camera sees. By viewing others work on PN we have a mechanism for learning to improve our photographic vision. Also, there are a number of great books and photographers/authors to help this improvement: A few for me are Michael Frye's books on Yosemite and digital photography (visit michaelfrye.com); the new <em>Ansel Adams in the National Parks </em>volume or any other Ansel Adams books; Galen Rowell's work; and the work of Jack Dykinga. I suggest visiting all this on the web. There are numerous others to match the thinking and style of each of us. </p>

[dan_south]

<ul>

<li>Sharpness</li>

<li>Composition</li>

<li>Exposure</li>

<li>Decisive moment</li>

<li>Emotional impact (including humor in some cases)</li>

<li>Would I want it to hang prominently in my living room?</li>

<li>Do I want to look at it again and again?</li>

<li>Would I be excited about showing it to my friends?</li>

<li>How does it make me feel?</li>

<li>How much fun did I have while I was taking it?</li>

<li>How much post-processing does it need (the less, the better)?</li>

<li>Does it offer a fresh perspective?</li>

</ul>

[rossb]

<p> I just keep it simple:</p>

<p>1. The Good<br>

2. The Bad<br>

3. The Ugly.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"as is knowing that you have captured what you set out to do."</em></p>

<p>On the other hand, I like creating rather than capturing and I love SURPRISES!</p>