FrankS
Registered User
When I look at an image, I first respond holistically and let it capture my interest/grab me, or not. Then I more systematically evaluate 5 distinct aspects:
1) how compelling is the actual content
2) the arrangement of visual elements in the image - composition
3) interesting/effective lighting (quality, direction, ...)
4) effectiveness/strength/purity of communication (lack of distracting elements)
5) technical issues (focus, exposure, dust, ...)
This is my personal image analysis checklist. Anyone else willing to share theirs?
1) how compelling is the actual content
2) the arrangement of visual elements in the image - composition
3) interesting/effective lighting (quality, direction, ...)
4) effectiveness/strength/purity of communication (lack of distracting elements)
5) technical issues (focus, exposure, dust, ...)
This is my personal image analysis checklist. Anyone else willing to share theirs?
Last edited:
fishtek
Don
I don't THINK about it as pointedly as you do, Frank! If an image gets my attention before I look at it through the VF, only then to I explore the variables with the camera up to my eye. Messing around with horizontal/vertical, framing, distance, crop potential, light/darkness, flare, shadow detail, etc., only tends to further pique my interest, or to lead me to forget the shot. It takes much longer to write/explain the process than to do it, of course. The only time I put serious thought into a photograph is if it's some form of portraiture...botanicals, faces, architectural features, dramatic landscapes, etc.
Much of my enjoyment of photography is when I see what I've produced, knowing that there's always improvement that can be found, either before, during, or after the shot is made.
How's THAT for ambiguity?
Slainte'!
Don
Much of my enjoyment of photography is when I see what I've produced, knowing that there's always improvement that can be found, either before, during, or after the shot is made.
How's THAT for ambiguity?
Slainte'!
Don
FrankS
Registered User
Don, I go through this checklist when looking at prints (or scans).
While photographing, I'm with you: if it "feels right" I'll trip the shutter.
While photographing, I'm with you: if it "feels right" I'll trip the shutter.
Last edited:
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Gee, Frank is going to gig me for dust - which can be the least of my worries on a thin neg.
FrankS
Registered User
Dust and insufficient exposure? That's 2 technical demerits, Andrew! 
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
IMPACT!
Take the gallery here, for example; so much volume to look at. But if a picture socks me in the jaw, or kicks me in the junk, or makes me think "what the hell is that?", I'll stop and look at it and think about it.
I can like and appreciate subtler stuff as well, but it finds me less easily.
Take the gallery here, for example; so much volume to look at. But if a picture socks me in the jaw, or kicks me in the junk, or makes me think "what the hell is that?", I'll stop and look at it and think about it.
I can like and appreciate subtler stuff as well, but it finds me less easily.
back alley
IMAGES
i also am attracted by the impact of an image and it seems the simpler the composition and content then the stronger the impact (most of the tiime).
but the pics of mine that i like the best are the crowded street scenes with many smaller areas of interest - i seem to be more alone than not in this respect.
joe
but the pics of mine that i like the best are the crowded street scenes with many smaller areas of interest - i seem to be more alone than not in this respect.
joe
PetarDima
Well-known
I agree with Frank, with technical aspect of taking photos, but my general interest when I look photo is emotion that PHOTO TAKES YOU(HCBresson said something like that, to feel a taste & smell of photography) ... same emotion when you press realise button, to hold one little piece of time and put it on paper.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Joe, crowded pictures with multiple foci of interest can be as attractive as simple, strong compositions. Sometimes.