What do you look for?

[mmeyer]

While I'm going through the forum sometimes I wonder about how everyone looks at photos. What I mean is, when you first see a photo, what do you look at first. How do you analyze a photo to decide if it's good? I thought it would be interesting to see how different people look at things.

When I look at a photo the first thing look at is the subject to see if it's something that interests me. Once I decide if it's a subject I'm interested in, I look at the exposure because that's what I have the most trouble with in my own work. Overexposure sticks out to me but minor underexposure is harder for me to discern. After that I look at composition and finally sharpness and color.

I'm sure my mental process is different than others so I'm interested to hear yours.

Just thinking.

[finnbay]

Whoa, that's a tough question. There are few subjects that don't interest me, so that usually isn't a factor. When I first view an image, it either grabs me or it doesn't. If it gets my attention then I look further to see what it is that sets that image apart. Sometimes it's the subject, sometimes it's the way the photo was composed and sometimes it might be a story within the image. When I spend more time with the photo, I find I do look at it with a more technical eye, probably for the same reason you mentioned. I try to study photos I like to determine what the exposure is like, saturation and composition. I know what most of my weaknesses are and hope to learn from an image what I might do to make mine better. I think that's one of the biggest reasons to view this forum. I'm getting pretty wordy - time to shut up now.

[MN Shutterbug]

Mike, I sort of follow your way of thinking. If it's not interesting to me, I don't really pay much attention to it. Otherwise, the first thing I notice is sharpness. If it's real soft, I move on fairly quickly. Next in line, would be exposure. Personally, I would prefer a little overexposure rather than underexposure. I don't like dark pictures. There again, everyone views things differently. Lastly, would be composition.

[Steve Foss]

It's also worth pointing out that photographers look at images very differently than the general public. I've seen eye-tracking studies that log where the eye travels around an image. Regular folks who like looking at pictures (the ones who BUY them), tend to stick right in the subject and at the edges of the subject itself. Photographers are all over the place looking at every element of an image.

That's one reason I rarely ask for image critiques from other photographers unless I'm looking for specific technical input. I don't know many photographers who can take off their photog hat and put on the regular person hat, and it's the latter that I'm almost always most interested in. Particularly since photographers don't sell many images to other photographers.

If I'm giving someone else an in-depth critique, I try to approach it from both perspectives.

And there are very different approaches to evaulating an image within the professional community. Is it an image designed to sell for an ad campaign in which the client will want a fair amount of negative space for ad copy? Is it to be marketed to a glossy nature magazine (magazine photo editors are a species all unto themselves)? Is it to be a fine art print marketed in galleries? A greeting card? Each of these disciplines has different "rules," and the people in charge of any of those disciplines may dismiss out of hand an image that would work perfectly well in another of those disciplines.

In the end, I think the best service I can give as an evaluator is to simply say whether the image moves me, and why it does or does not (again, that's unless there's a specific technical issue to be dealt with.) If photographers can make images that inspire people, all the rest will take care of itself.

[finnbay]

 Quote:

It's also worth pointing out that photographers look at images very differently than the general public.

You're very right, Steve. I've been pointing out different things to my wife for the last few years. Lately it's been driving her crazy because now she looks for the same kinds of things. I'm just about done with a photography unit with my classes at school and one of the most satisfying results that I see is when a student comes up and says something like "wouldn't that make a good photo using the rule of thirds?" Hooked another one!

[Dbl]

I usually edit a lot of photos per week and the first thing I normally do on the first pass is check for sharpness and subject. Next time through I am looking for exposure and color and contrast and how open to editing the shot might be. When I am looking at other photos I tend to follow the same procedure. Overall the picture needs to say something to me like Steve mentioned. I can overlook technical aspects of any photo if it makes keep coming back for another look.

[jonny_redhorse]

Good Topic!...kinda hard to really answer!...I guess what "moves me" is the "uniqueness " of an image or photo,the way an image is "put together"and even then it's personal preference....composition more then anything makes or breaks a photo(to me of course)...then the clarity ,saturation etc. takes over after that....some people are just plain good at putting an entire photo "together"...I guess...take Jim Brandenberg,what does he have that the average Joe on the street doesn't have?...He has the ability to wait until "everything" looks interesting,maybe complete, waits and watches until "just the right moment",sometimes luck but in his case, it's not luck or he wouldn't be Jim Brandenberg...lol!...I like to "envision" a small scene in my mind when I look at a subject,just what would make the photo I'm about to take best...the light?...more shadow?...maybe get that stump in the picture?...is the chickadee better looking away? or looking down?...should I get the bird with a branch by it?,Is the lone deer better looking at me? or looking to the side...I watch the background light in case the background will be blown out(knowing it very well could ruin the image)...I personally am of the idea that the image(photo) doesn't necessrily have to be "clear" or even "soft or misty"...there's room for both types of images depending on the situation and then I "build on it"...take advantage of the soft morning light...fog in the morning...most shots won't be "crystal clear" under those conditions...I watch the subject and make sure it's not overcome by shadows also...I try to make sure the lighting is "just right"...well try to..lol!...just some of my thoughts here...

[mmeyer]

Great responses guys. That's what I was hoping to hear. I can tell by the way that everyone comments on the photos on this site that everyone looks at different things and likes different images. That's the way it should be.

Jonny, it's funny you should mention Jim Brandenburg. I was watching a TBS show on him last night and that was part of what got me thinking about this stuff. Hey, by the way, do any of you Northerners know him?

Thanks

[Steve Foss]

I know Jim and Judy. I've interviewed Jim several times for newspaper stories and have been out at their place a few times. I also did a feature on Judy and their daughter, Heidi, who teamed up for a cancer walk in the Twin Cities.

He's a classy man. Thoughtful, caring, helpful.

Aside from being one of the first whose work inspired me to take up the camera, he also was a great neighbor to me as I was getting started in nature photography. He allowed me to work with his assistant (using his equipment and materials at no charge to me) to make an especially large abstract print when I was mounting my first show in Ely four years ago. That print would have cost $200 to $300 if I'd contracted a lab to do the scanning and toning and everything to produce it. He charged me nothing.

His daugher, Heidi, is much the same. She is his business manager, and she's been very free with her experiences as I initially worked my way through issues with matting and framing, Web design and potential books. They set a fine example of how talented people can give back to the community that supports them, and it's a lesson well worth emulating.

Every once in awhile, when I'm feeling the photographic equivalent of writer's block, I'll pop open a beer and sit in front of the fire and look at "Chased By The Light" or "Looking For The Summer," and that will take care of my lack of inspiration.

As always when someone so inspires another creator, I've worked hard to allow the inspiration without letting in the imitation that so often comes with it.

I'm not a name-dropper. I hate that. But you asked.

[finnbay]

I teach a photography class to my students at Ely Memorial High School and he has agreed to come into my class and speak to the students. Unfortunately we haven't been able to come up with a time when my class is available and he's not on assignment or on a project. Still have a commitment from him to come in before the end of the year. Seems he's always interested in helping others learn the craft.

[Steve Foss]

Ken, that reminds me. We need to set a time for me to come in and work with your class, too, as already discussed. Just shoot me an e-mail with whatever you have in mind.

Mike, sorry for that short foray off topic.

I like the back and forth of critiques and inspiration. While it seems I'm most often in a teaching mode on this forum, I have been inspired in many ways by some of work I've seen here (that includes yours, Mike), and I have learned here as well. We all see the world a bit differently, and so all our presentations of the world through the eye of the camera reflect that uniqueness.

[mmeyer]

I figured you guys must know him. Steve that's really cool, that he's so helpful to people. Seems like maybe that rubs off on some others from that area!

Dukhnt and I missed him by a day when we went to see the swans a couple weeks ago. I didn't even know who he was but I've heard a bunch about him since then.

Thanks again

Mike

[MN Shutterbug]

I don't know Jim personally, but I've certainly admired many of his wolf photos. He is awesome. It's also nice to know that he's a decent human being.

[cluelessfisherman]

The more I think about photography & and learn from reading everyones informative posts, the more I realize it is as much an art form as it is a science!

Good read...

[Paul]

I think what I look for first is that the image is pleasing to the eye (mine) since eveyone's preference is different. I look at the colors, I like bright contrasting colors, such as red, blue and white. If it is landscape I look at the back ground, if it is macro, I look at the details, if it is portrait I look to see if the subject was trying to deliver a message, as if to say something with their eyes or expression. If it is a pet, I look for the eyes, and facial expression or action.

Just some of the things I look at.

[jonny_redhorse]

"Since everyone's preferrence is different"....I couldn't agree more Paul....A"style" is created when snapping images and we all certainly have seen that as we watch the posts of images by different individuals...I for one, would not like my photos to "look just like the next guys",I try for "something different" ,not necessarily radical(maybe some are..lol!) but just different,I sometimes add an "artsy" approach and look to some of my images but it certainly isn't for everybody,not all of my photos but a few,it's my own look and style.the images here are just an example of what I mean I guess.just an image of a lone chickadee on a branch as a hundred other chickadee captured sitting on a branch but I made these somewhat different as one can see...the coloring,softness(intentionally didn't want the images crystal clear)...the angle of the bird the bird looking away from the camera(another perspective but still has interest)....the "warmer colors" add from the usual cold, starkness to the images also....warmth can be in an image even if it's 20 below lol!....