How Do You Look At Photos?: Reference Thread

[RayPA]

Todd (todd.hanz) and I are putting together some photo-critiquing threads. What we're looking for here is a reference thread containing your suggestions, hints, and tips on how you look at and evaluate photographs.

We'll link to this thread from the critique threads so that anyone wanting to participate in a critique can read about some methods used by others.

So what do you do?

How do you look at photographs?

Or if you want to recommend a book or post a link regarding critiquing photograhs, you can do that, but please try to post something that someone can use immediately?

TIA for your participation!

[FrankS]

Good idea.

My first criterion when looking at/evluating a photo is: does it hold my attention for more than 2 saeconds. Then I proceed to analyze why or why not. If I were leafing through a book of photos, would this one make me stop to really look at it, or would I continue leafing forward uninterrupted.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by FrankS

does it hold my attention for more than 2 saeconds

Do we have to go into minutae?

My impression was that most of the time whenever threads like that were made, many people saw them as "elitist" (as if owning anything wasn't elitist enough -- oh how all's relative!) or I saw a counter-reaction with threads that showed there was word exhaustion.

I'd be more than interested to find some, but the subject titles are so...err...not as descriptive or congruent as they could be, to put it lightly, it is indeed going to be a challenge to do an effective search through the site.

Perhaps you could update your initial post with some relevant keywords or logical matches?

Excellent idea, Ray.

[sf]

First, I either like it in the first couple seconds or I don't.

then, I look at a photo in three dimensions.

1. tonality/color/exposure
2. subject/impact/message/story
3. composition/focal plane/DOF

A photograph can score highly in any of those categories and still be dull or even horrible according to my own taste.

I photograph is truly good when all those aspects work together well.

I suppose I also look at a photo in relation to previous works. How is it unique? I can't stand cliches . . . I have shot a great many of them, though.

[Todd.Hanz]

I look for some sort of subject, as most have said above they want the image to grab thier attention in the first couple of seconds. Then I try to see how the photog. went about presenting the subject or idea through use of focus, depth of field, composition in the frame, etc.

Exposure, sharpness, tonal range, shadow detail are all technical aspects that add to an image.

This link discusses some guidelines when critiquing a photograph: http://www.photosig.com/go/main/help?name=tutorial/t10

Todd

[back alley]

does it have impact?
what kind of impact?
does it hold my attention and make me look around in the scene for more?
does it make me ask questions?

[ghost]

how i look at photos changes depending on what i'm looking at. *shrug*

[jan normandale]

I have absolutely no idea.

Hats off to you Ray and Todd

Jan

[ampguy]

does it interest or excite me, or does it bore me?

Originally Posted by RayPA

Todd (todd.hanz) and I are putting together some photo-critiquing threads. What we're looking for here is a reference thread containing your suggestions, hints, and tips on how you look at and evaluate photographs.

We'll link to this thread from the critique threads so that anyone wanting to participate in a critique can read about some methods used by others.

So what do you do?

How do you look at photographs?

Or if you want to recommend a book or post a link regarding critiquing photograhs, you can do that, but please try to post something that someone can use immediately?

TIA for your participation!

[Gabriel M.A.]

Well, how I look at a photograph: Do I like it?

But there are four things I certainly don't like in a photograph:
1) No camera involved (beer does not qualify as water)
2) Kitsch use of HDR
3) Indiscriminate use of camera shake to compensate for lack of vision
4) Harm done to any living thing or anybody for the sake of having the image recorded.

I don't care whether it's "digital" or "film"; that sort juvenile discrimination is up there with "I don't like sandwiches made by ugly aunt Gladys", imvho. I don't care whether it's taken with one brand of camera or not. I care about the person behind the camera, and the subject in front of the camera.

Technique is spice. Vision is soul. Presentation is bon apetit.

[Finder]

I use my eyes. Apart from that, I have a similar system to Jan's.

[remrf]

It depends on the circumstance in which I am viewing the photograph. When I am viewing them online they are usually in a reduced size which allows one to view the total image at a glance. The first glance will tell me about the composition and the subject matter. If those have appeal then I will look deeper into detail, contrast range and image sharpness. If viewing large prints I will scan through to find the subject and if pleasing to me I will then go on and look at composition and other technical details. I will go right by most blurry photos very quickly as I am a nut for crisp, sharp fine grain images.

[ghost]

you'll miss out on a lot of great photos and photographers that way. i just looked through "tulsa" at the bookstore, and it was amazing.

[JohnL]

Originally Posted by FrankS

Good idea.

My first criterion when looking at/evluating a photo is: does it hold my attention for more than 2 saeconds. Then I proceed to analyze why or why not. If I were leafing through a book of photos, would this one make me stop to really look at it, or would I continue leafing forward uninterrupted.

Very similar to my approach. I try to judge an image by its effectiveness, which often relates to impact. I try not to get too concerned about IQ issues. I also tend to get turned off by analyses that seem (to me) too academic, detailed and/or irrelevant. My two questions to myself are "Was this made for a reason or purpose?" and "Is the purpose achieved?"

[remrf]

Originally Posted by ghost

you'll miss out on a lot of great photos and photographers that way. i just looked through "tulsa" at the bookstore, and it was amazing.

Great by someone elses standards.

[tetrisattack]

I try to find the underlying idea. If the execution is as good as the idea, then I smile and raise my hat to the photographer. It's comparatively easy to nail your technique; actually having something to say is the hardest part and is therefore what pleases me most nowadays.

[ghost]

Originally Posted by remrf

Great by someone elses standards.

i bet you haven't even seen "tulsa".

[Kevin]

I judge a good photograph on its ability to tell me a story.

[remrf]

Originally Posted by ghost

i bet you haven't even seen "tulsa".

You'd lose your bet.

"Tulsa" by Larry Clark. Published originally in the early 70's. I did not like it then nor do I like it now.

[RayPA]

Because images can be successful on many different levels, I try not to make an instant determination on whether I like an image or not n the first couple of seconds of viewing. I think that it is somewhat easy to make an image instantly "appealing," simply by using standard compositional rules, conventions, and cliches. For example, I think that every shot I've ever seen that includes the classic 'S' curve is appealing. Often the images that are strongest through the use of standard conventional rules of composition are the weakest in terms of interest and content.

Having said that I think the most important moment in viewing an image is the first time I see it, so I try to capture what happens in that moment.

I try to view along the same lines as George's breakdown. I take it all in and basically decompose along the lines of form and content. I try to be very conscious on the effects of an image on my eye. How my eye gets pulled around the image and what is pulling it. (Sometimes I'll squint at the image to sort of put it out of focus and see the areas of contrast and highlights.)

I am very much interested in messages, stories, and evocations within the image, as well as the relationship of the photographer to the subject-matter. I know that often the stories or messages in a photograph are not in the conscious control of the photographer, and may be a serendipitous happenings, but I don't believe they are total accidents either. It is great fun to decompose an image when everything seems to work in it.

[ghost]

if it didn't meet your standards, which ones were they?

[boarini2003]

I look at the following:

-Composition/Shape, or otherwise visual appearence
-Meaning, or what the image makes me think about, if at all

Any of these things well accomplished makes a good image. The HCB photo of the man jumping over the puddle is iconic and beautiful, however it doesn't convey any obvious emotional meaning. On the other hand, a Garry Winogrand shot will have a composition that almost seems chaotic, but has much meaning hidden under the obvious.

[nomade]

I'm not quite sure, but i think i've to find something interesting to keep looking at it, the subject matters a lot, how the techniques and light were used to aid the photo's cause. I think. I've never though about that before, when you read, you understand more, and hence the things that you used to like aren't satisfactory...The way i look differs automatically, i don't put standards for that, i just look at it, and let my thoughts flow...

[fitzihardwurshd]

Originally Posted by RayPA

Todd (todd.hanz)
So what do you do?
How do you look at photographs?
O

This question looks simple, hard to answer simple.

Of course , as Frank said, there must be something which keeps me watching it for a while, but what is it that attracts my attention at the first sight ?

For me, there is a creative part and a technical part

As for the creative part there must be an emotion clearly visible , something the photog wants to tell me, the emotion which has mede him press the release button.
The concept must be original in some way, at least a personal interpretation ,not a boring copy of things we have seen a thousand times before.
Boredom comes from imitating and copying.

As for the technical part it must show the photog has learned his lessons and used his knowledge well to make his idea visible: Composition, the use of light and a perfect exposure for the adaequate tonality and contrast, correct use of DOF, right film and development, careful scanning and postprocessing for the monitor, it's all important.

An emotion presented with sloppy craft is like speaking wise words with a mouth full of hot mashed potatoes. You do not understand it all.
The other way round , a technical well done photo without any emotion, that's mostly a copy of anything we have seen somewhere very often, a cliche. Often to find at nude galeries.

More general I could not answer the question , not sure anyway if I covered all aspects well. Telling emotions, that's it for me.

Fitzi

[gns]

Rules for looking at pictures are perhaps no better than rules for making them.
If something is new (original), it will likely challenge your ideas about what a good picture is.
One needs to be open. (At least to learn).

Cheers