© Bernhard Westrup (Bergfex) (collage with only own pictures)

Three months ago, the administration of the ambassador pictures fell to me. This group is one of the flagships of ipernity, because the pictures in this group are shown to curious visitors from the web when they discover our website and click onto the button: Explore ➽Noteworthy.

At this occasion, the co-admin raingirl, who also is a jury member, asked the important question: "What is a good photo? What makes us vote yes?". Actually, these are two questions. The first is to find out what distinguishes a good photo. The second is about which of the lot of 'good photos' shall be shown to our visitors. After all, any visitor should not be overwhelmed with millions of 'good photos', but only be shown the ones that are particularly worth seeing.

You can well imagine this selection process from the idea of wanting to make an annual calendar with your own pictures for your relatives for next Christmas. Since a standard annual calendar has 12 sheets, you are faced with the task of selecting the 12 particularly worth seeing pictures from your large number of good pictures.

It is the same with the ambassador pictures. How the jury selects the most noteworthy photos is a separate problem. In any case, the basic set for the selection are 'good photos' submitted by the group members. Therefore it might be helpful to reflect on this matter. So let me invite you to discuss the following.

In my opinion there are 5 criteria for photo assessment:

1. Content (the motif as such)
Is it a common motif or a rare one? Does it show a unique subject or situation? Does it arouse my curiosity? Does it widen my horizons?

2. Composition
Is the photo cropped appropriately, or are there too many unimportant elements distracting from the main motif? Does the photo contain irritating elements? Has the shooting position and/or the perspective been well chosen? Is the choice of foreground or background correct? Are there any criteria for picture composition such as golden section, line management, space allocation, contrasts or opposites? Was the appropriate picture format (landscape, portrait, square) chosen?

3. Technical realization
Is the correct sharpness applied to the main motif? Is any blurring intentional or unintentional? Is the depth of field appropriate? Is the photo correctly exposed? Is any overexposure or underexposure a design element? Is any noise in the picture a design element? Is the visible horizon horizontal? Is a conscious colour design (colourful/off-colour, warm/cold/complementary) recognisable? Is there a colour cast? Is the colour saturation appropriate?

4. Lighting & colour
Does the light emphasise the essential elements of the picture? Is the light too harsh or too dull? Does the light emphasise the mood? Was the motif photographed in a suitable lighting situation (foreground light, side light, back light, artificial light, mixed light, diffuse scattered light)? Does the light emphasise the mood?

5. Impact
Does the picture have an emotional impact on the viewer? Does it tell a story or have a message? Is it creative or original? Does the viewing evoke appreciation of the photographic achievement?

If I were to propose a scoring system based on these criteria, I would do so as follows:

0 = Against the rules
Copyright infringement (plagiarism), violations of the law (freedom of panorama, pornography, hatred, violence)
► Delete. ✂ ✂ ✂
Examples:
Permitted reference citations according to copyright law. Published originals:
© SOUL7, Suspenders © Virtual model, Bea, exposed for you © A M, In the water
Well, these 3 pictures are legally admissible in Europe. But they are a disgrace for the photographer as well as for ipernity. Photographers with a sense of decency wouldn't upload something like this at all.


1 = Insufficient

Major technical shortcomings, meaningless content, no recognisable image design or design that contradicts all aesthetic principles. Not even sufficient for amateur demands.
► Rather delete as well. ✂
Examples:
Permitted reference citations according to copyright law. Published originals:
©
Christophe Ruelle, DSC00549 © Michiel 2005, Venice 2022 – Spy outfit


2 = Deficient

Elementary deficiencies in the realisation of a barely adequate pictorial idea.
► For documentary purposes at best. ☹ ☹ ☹
Examples:
Permitted reference citations according to copyright law. Published originals:
©
Christophe Ruelle, DSC00663 © Steve Bucknell, Happy New Year!


3 = Just sufficient.

A photo that is in no way satisfying.
► Keep at most as a souvenir photo. ☹ ☹
Examples:
Permitted reference citations according to copyright law. Published originals:
©
Jianliang, Mia aminda nepo © Ramon Hierro, La belleza y el entorno .Burgos


4 = Sufficient

There are approaches in the 5 aspects mentioned above, but they are not satisfactory.
► One should not expect too much on publication. ☹
Examples:
Permitted reference citations according to copyright law. Published originals:
©
Steve Bucknell, This Way © Frank Wilhelm, BÖ0023300


5 = On average

The performance corresponds to average amateur photographic expectations.
► Middle-of-the-road, favs mostly from well-meaning friends. (★)
Examples:
Permitted reference citations according to copyright law. Published originals:
©
Salientia, Palmenhaus © Paolo Tanino, Il borgo di Boccadasse


6 = Good

The performance is upper mid-range. It's a good amateur photo.
► This could get favs also from others. ⭐
Examples:
Permitted reference citations according to copyright law. Published originals:
©
Ralf Markert, Hallstatt... © Patrick Brandy, 620A2705


7 = Splendid

An interesting content was presented with message-enhancing means without technical deficiencies.
► This could get favs from more people. ⭐⭐
Examples:
Permitted reference citations according to copyright law. Published originals:
©
Maeluk, Squirrel © Gary Benson (grbenson3 on flickr), Misty Morning Light


8 = Awesome

The photographer's work is to be fully acknowledged. However, slight improvements are conceivable.
► This could get many favs. ⭐⭐⭐
Examples:
Permitted reference citations according to copyright law. Published originals:
©
Karl Hartwig Schütz, Glück © Karl-Hartig Schütz, Regenfront


9 = Excellent

A picture that delights and is perfectly shot and edited.
► A picture like this can be submitted to photo competitions. ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Examples:
Permitted reference citations according to copyright law. Published originals:
©
Stephan Fey, Brahms Kontor, Hamburg - HFF © Knut Photos, Nads La Sho


10 = Top

Perfect rendition of a technically difficult, inspiring content.
► A picture like this can win in photo competitions. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Examples:
Permitted reference citations according to copyright law. Published originals:
©
Ralf Markert, Der Schwimmer © Berny, sky power

There are already some discussion contributions in the ambassador group on this topic. However, because of the general importance of this matter, I would like to bring it out into the open so that it can be discussed by all interested members.

Bernhard Westrup (Bergfex)
St. Johann in Tyrol
November 24, 2022