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
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.
If this image was cropped from the sides making the 'V' shape at the bottom, the part that has the tiny bit of green, become more noticable connecting with the almost 'V' shape of the tentacles on the snails, and at the same time that cropping would remove distractions from the most fascinating part of the image, the touching points of the snails, then I would probably find it to be a photo I would think about more than once.
I did notice a different image in the video that if done as a still I would probably consider for a longer time. It had a different type cropping to the scene than I describe above.
(I'm sorry if this isn't the type of comment you were looking for by asking "What do you think about this? - but I thought it might be.)
Sign-in to write a comment.