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)
Examples:
© 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.
Examples:
© Christophe Ruelle, DSC00549 © Michiel 2005, Venice 2022 – Spy outfit
2 = Deficient
Elementary deficiencies in the realisation of a barely adequate pictorial idea.
Examples:
© Christophe Ruelle, DSC00663 © Steve Bucknell, Happy New Year!
3 = Just sufficient.
A photo that is in no way satisfying.
Examples:
© 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.
Examples:
© Steve Bucknell, This Way © Frank Wilhelm, BÖ0023300
5 = On average
The performance corresponds to average amateur photographic expectations.
Examples:
© Salientia, Palmenhaus © Paolo Tanino, Il borgo di Boccadasse
6 = Good
The performance is upper mid-range. It's a good amateur photo.
Examples:
© Ralf Markert, Hallstatt... © Patrick Brandy, 620A2705
7 = Splendid
An interesting content was presented with message-enhancing means without technical deficiencies.
Examples:
© 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.
Examples:
© Karl Hartwig Schütz, Glück © Karl-Hartig Schütz, Regenfront
9 = Excellent
A picture that delights and is perfectly shot and edited.
Examples:
© Stephan Fey, Brahms Kontor, Hamburg - HFF © Knut Photos, Nads La Sho
10 = Top
Perfect rendition of a technically difficult, inspiring content.
Examples:
© 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
This type of response to an image might be seen by viewing Eggleston photographs (which you can see here: egglestonartfoundation.org This photographer is very famous. I personally don't like their photographs that much, but I can appreciate how others do and even the reasons they do. Still they don't make it for me personally.
While this seems to be an example of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", I'm not 100% sure I agree with that often used statement. I think what makes me wonder about it is the use of the word "beauty". Sometimes we can't see the beauty because we lack knowledge, or life experience, or maybe even simply don't take the time to use our intelligence to find the beauty that someone else sees.
This might be the case for me an the photographer Eggleston. Is beauty really the goal in all art? I think not. Is beauty what makes a good photo? I think it can be part of it, but doesn't necessarily have to be there at all.
I certainly don't have all the answers. It would be sad to me if we could quantify what equals beauty and what equals a great photo. That would eliminate the emotional and personal side of art. As artists we create something. We have a goal, a purpose or a vision for that art. But then we have to let it go and let it stand on it's own. The rest of it is individual to the person who is then exposed to that art. It becomes the viewer's experience and however they respond is legitimate for them.
I think of my husband's most famous song lyric. Many people in the world view it as a sad song, yet if one pays close attention one realizes that it is actually a song of success, of personal power and strength against a difficult situation. So are all those people who think of it as sweetly sad wrong? No. They have only connected to one part of the lyric, one that speaks to their personal journey. They are allowed to have that. Maybe later they would see the deeper part, but there is no requirement for them to do that. Is the art of that lyric a failure because people don't see the deeper side of it? Perhaps from the artist's perspective, but as art stands on its own once finished, I don't think so. I think it is a success because people have foudn a way to interact with the work. It has engaged them. I have yet to know of someone why heard the song and simply turned away untouched in some fashion.
And by the way, your humorous link, I like that photo a lot even without the funny caption. I think the choice to make the woman horizontal and leave the horizon at an angle works really well. It keeps one looking all over the photo and pondering it.
The sentence is a methaphor only. "Beauty" means: "Whether one likes something...". And the "eye of the beholder" is actually his/her brain. So one would have to say more correctly: "Whether a viewer likes a picture depends on how his/her brain has been conditioned". But that reads complicated, and most people don't like complicated issues. They talk about 'renewable energies', for example. Hello? Since when can energy be renewed? According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy is never lost and cannot be renewed! The term is linguistic nonsense, but it has nevertheless become commonplace.
Or the metaphor: "He/she broke my heart." This is complete medical nonsense. You would have to open the chest and cool the heart down with liquid nitrogen to the point where it can be broken mechanically at all.
One must never take metaphors literally, but only according to their meaning.
Sign-in to write a comment.