| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2008 06:57:55 PM · #1 |
How much weightage would you give to each of these categories, out of a full 10 marks?
(a) A nicely exposed original picture (without post processing)
(b) Post processing (everything from basic enhancement to layers etc... whichever is allowed)
(c) The subject of the picture (how rare is the subject.. e.g. a pretty bird or woman or a baby or a gorgeous sunset)
(d) Creativity (of theme, lighting, setup, and more)
(e) Aesthetic appeal (subjective attraction factor)
ETA: Lets assume you may use fractional weights too.. like 1.6 etc. as long as they all add up to 10.
The goal here is to hopefully see what people look for in a good picture.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 19:12:00. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 07:07:10 PM · #2 |
Tough question, one or more of your list could sway outside the norm....for instance the first person who gets a picture of a Ivory Billed Woodpecker has a serious picture, regardless of the quality.
But to give your scheme some thought.
exposure - 1 (expected)
post processing - 1.5
subject - 1.5
creativity - 3
aesthetics - 3 |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 07:07:32 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 07:11:30 PM · #4 |
Here is my take:
exposure - 3
post processing - 1
subject - 1
creativity - 2
aesthetics - 3 |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 07:12:37 PM · #5 |
for the most part:
0
0
4
0
6
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 07:13:07 PM · #6 |
(a)0 since I don't think this exists. There is always processing needed be it by the camera (for jpeg) or editing software
(b) 0 If the processing is bad it detracts, otherwise it's irrelevant
(c) 0
(d) 0
(e) 10
For this scale. (e) includes proper exposure, dynamic composition and plenty of impact |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 07:23:28 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Prash:
How much weightage would you give to each of these categories, out of a full 10 marks?
(a) A nicely exposed original picture (without post processing)
(b) Post processing (everything from basic enhancement to layers etc... whichever is allowed)
(c) The subject of the picture (how rare is the subject.. e.g. a pretty bird or woman or a baby or a gorgeous sunset)
(d) Creativity (of theme, lighting, setup, and more)
(e) Aesthetic appeal (subjective attraction factor)... |
a) that would depend on whether these options would benefit the kind of image it is
b) same as a}, otherwise 0 weight
c) some additional weight for showing something I haven't seen before , negative weight for cliche, clearly offensive renditions, vacuous satins, commercial exploitations etc.
d) creativity is worth a karat or two, but I've seen it get in the way of a perfectly good picture as well
e) yes, it could happen. Again, aesthetics need not be a measure at all.
I think I'm up to 2. The other 8 are reserved for the hard facts of the picture. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 07:37:10 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Prash:
How much weightage would you give to each of these categories, out of a full 10 marks?
(a) A nicely exposed original picture (without post processing)
(b) Post processing (everything from basic enhancement to layers etc... whichever is allowed)
(c) The subject of the picture (how rare is the subject.. e.g. a pretty bird or woman or a baby or a gorgeous sunset)
(d) Creativity (of theme, lighting, setup, and more)
(e) Aesthetic appeal (subjective attraction factor)... |
a) that would depend on whether these options would benefit the kind of image it is
b) same as a}, otherwise 0 weight
c) some additional weight for showing something I haven't seen before , negative weight for cliche, clearly offensive renditions, vacuous satins, commercial exploitations etc.
d) creativity is worth a karat or two, but I've seen it get in the way of a perfectly good picture as well
e) yes, it could happen. Again, aesthetics need not be a measure at all.
I think I'm up to 2. The other 8 are reserved for the hard facts of the picture. |
Thanks. Is it possible to generalize the hard facts that you mentioned? Can you share examples? Perhaps we can add a category that encompasses them? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 07:44:43 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
[quote=Prash] How much weightage would you give to each of these categories, out of a full 10 marks?
a) that would depend on whether these options would benefit the kind of image it is
b) same as a}, otherwise 0 weight
c) some additional weight for showing something I haven't seen before , negative weight for cliche, clearly offensive renditions, vacuous satins, commercial exploitations etc.
d) creativity is worth a karat or two, but I've seen it get in the way of a perfectly good picture as well
e) yes, it could happen. Again, aesthetics need not be a measure at all.
I think I'm up to 2. The other 8 are reserved for the hard facts of the picture. |
Thanks. Is it possible to generalize the hard facts that you mentioned? Can you share examples? Perhaps we can add a category that encompasses them? |
I wasn't the poster of that comment, but I'd suggest that those weren't "hard facts" at all. Photography, and any kind of art, is subjective. For me, coming up with fixed values for aspects of art goes against what art is all about. That's why I'd agree with those who said aesthetic appeal is the bottom line. For me, sometimes those other factors interfere with aesthetic appeal, sometimes they enhance it. But is it really necessary to assign a numeric value to those categories you listed? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 07:51:08 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by mindbottling:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
[quote=Prash] How much weightage would you give to each of these categories, out of a full 10 marks?
a) that would depend on whether these options would benefit the kind of image it is
b) same as a}, otherwise 0 weight
c) some additional weight for showing something I haven't seen before , negative weight for cliche, clearly offensive renditions, vacuous satins, commercial exploitations etc.
d) creativity is worth a karat or two, but I've seen it get in the way of a perfectly good picture as well
e) yes, it could happen. Again, aesthetics need not be a measure at all.
I think I'm up to 2. The other 8 are reserved for the hard facts of the picture. |
Thanks. Is it possible to generalize the hard facts that you mentioned? Can you share examples? Perhaps we can add a category that encompasses them? |
I wasn't the poster of that comment, but I'd suggest that those weren't "hard facts" at all. Photography, and any kind of art, is subjective. For me, coming up with fixed values for aspects of art goes against what art is all about. That's why I'd agree with those who said aesthetic appeal is the bottom line. For me, sometimes those other factors interfere with aesthetic appeal, sometimes they enhance it. But is it really necessary to assign a numeric value to those categories you listed? |
That is the question I am trying to answer. For example, the ones that weighted only aesthetics as the foremost factor, are being honest to their beliefs. And if it turns out that only aesthetics make an image good, so be it. I just want to find out what makes a good image 'good'. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:01:37 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Prash:
... Is it possible to generalize the hard facts that you mentioned? Can you share examples? Perhaps we can add a category that encompasses them? |
I'm sure it is possible, but I doubt this is the place to do it.
Since it is impossible to have a critical discussion here without resolving to subjectivity, beholders and eyes, let me answer subjectively.
A measure of Energy is something I'm looking for in a photograph, Range as well. There is of course emotional energy, energy by virtue of composition and more, all kinds of considerations. Range, too, can be split up for any kind categorization.
For practical purposes, here, let's just define these terms the only way we know, subjectively. :-)
(The facts of the picture, of course, demand a picture, a real one, not just an idea of one).
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 20:04:09. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:05:38 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Prash:
... Is it possible to generalize the hard facts that you mentioned? Can you share examples? Perhaps we can add a category that encompasses them? |
I'm sure it is possible, but I doubt this is the place to do it.
Since it is impossible have a critical discussion here without resolving to subjectivity, beholders and eyes, let me answer subjectively.
A measure of Energy is something I'm looking for in a photograph, Range as well. There is of course emotional energy, energy by virtue of composition and more, all kinds of considerations. Range, too, can be split up for any kind categorization.
For practical purposes, here, let's just define these terms the only way we know, subjectively. :-)
(The facts of the picture, of course, demand a picture, a real one, not an idea of one). |
Hmm. I understand (at least partly) what you are trying to say:-)
So wouldnt you say these 'subjective' factors can be combined in the 'aesthetics' category (e)? That is what 'parameters' are, arent they? They generalize a category, and take a different value based upon the subjectivity of the context.
I do understand it is hard to put numbers to these categories, exactly the point of this thread. But then, can we say "Only aesthetics matter for me in a good image" and in turn put all the allowed weight to this category (a 10 in this case)? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:07:53 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Prash:
How much weightage would you give to each of these categories, out of a full 10 marks?
(a) A nicely exposed original picture (without post processing)
(b) Post processing (everything from basic enhancement to layers etc... whichever is allowed)
(c) The subject of the picture (how rare is the subject.. e.g. a pretty bird or woman or a baby or a gorgeous sunset)
(d) Creativity (of theme, lighting, setup, and more)
(e) Aesthetic appeal (subjective attraction factor)
ETA: Lets assume you may use fractional weights too.. like 1.6 etc. as long as they all add up to 10.
The goal here is to hopefully see what people look for in a good picture. |
since a, b, c, and d are all a part of (e), (e) takes all the points. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:08:58 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Prash:
How much weightage would you give to each of these categories, out of a full 10 marks?
(a) A nicely exposed original picture (without post processing)
(b) Post processing (everything from basic enhancement to layers etc... whichever is allowed)
(c) The subject of the picture (how rare is the subject.. e.g. a pretty bird or woman or a baby or a gorgeous sunset)
(d) Creativity (of theme, lighting, setup, and more)
(e) Aesthetic appeal (subjective attraction factor)
ETA: Lets assume you may use fractional weights too.. like 1.6 etc. as long as they all add up to 10.
The goal here is to hopefully see what people look for in a good picture. |
since a, b, c, and d are all a part of (e), (e) takes all the points. |
Yes and no. a talks about no processing. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:10:42 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Prash:
(a) A nicely exposed original picture (without post processing)
(b) Post processing (everything from basic enhancement to layers etc... whichever is allowed)
(c) The subject of the picture (how rare is the subject.. e.g. a pretty bird or woman or a baby or a gorgeous sunset)
(d) Creativity (of theme, lighting, setup, and more)
(e) Aesthetic appeal (subjective attraction factor)
|
(a) 0 - although it happes, in this day and age its not as important
(b) 2 - lots to know but only weighs in when its bad (as said previously)
(c) 3 - If I take a shot of a brick on a side walk it will have less than half the appeal than a woman or child.
(d) 3 - to me if this is done right it makes for the rest of the items.
(e) 2 - provided the subject is intriging and the image is done creatively this will come natuarally. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:10:58 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Prash:
How much weightage would you give to each of these categories, out of a full 10 marks?
(a) A nicely exposed original picture (without post processing)
(b) Post processing (everything from basic enhancement to layers etc... whichever is allowed)
(c) The subject of the picture (how rare is the subject.. e.g. a pretty bird or woman or a baby or a gorgeous sunset)
(d) Creativity (of theme, lighting, setup, and more)
(e) Aesthetic appeal (subjective attraction factor)
ETA: Lets assume you may use fractional weights too.. like 1.6 etc. as long as they all add up to 10.
The goal here is to hopefully see what people look for in a good picture. |
since a, b, c, and d are all a part of (e), (e) takes all the points. |
Yes and no. a talks about no processing. |
Which can still be aesthetically pleasing, and if it's not, it's not a good photo. (e) takes all the points :) |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:13:04 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Prash:
How much weightage would you give to each of these categories, out of a full 10 marks?
(a) A nicely exposed original picture (without post processing)
(b) Post processing (everything from basic enhancement to layers etc... whichever is allowed)
(c) The subject of the picture (how rare is the subject.. e.g. a pretty bird or woman or a baby or a gorgeous sunset)
(d) Creativity (of theme, lighting, setup, and more)
(e) Aesthetic appeal (subjective attraction factor)
ETA: Lets assume you may use fractional weights too.. like 1.6 etc. as long as they all add up to 10.
The goal here is to hopefully see what people look for in a good picture. |
since a, b, c, and d are all a part of (e), (e) takes all the points. |
Yes and no. a talks about no processing. |
Which can still be aesthetically pleasing, and if it's not, it's not a good photo. (e) takes all the points :) |
a and b are mutually exclusive
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:25:03 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
a and b are mutually exclusive |
but they aren't mutually exclusive of e.
e incorporates all of the above, and is, IMO, the only important aspect of a good photo thus.
*EDIT* Let me put it this way. You can have a good photo with A, but without B, C, or D, as long as it also has E.
You can have a good photo with B, without having A, C, or D, as long as it has E.
You can have a good photo with C, without having A, B, or D, as long...
and so on.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 20:26:51. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:26:39 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
a and b are mutually exclusive |
but they aren't mutually exclusive of e.
e incorporates all of the above, and is, IMO, the only important aspect of a good photo thus. |
No, but you can't have both together, if a even exists. That's my point.
And b for the most part is irrelevant.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 20:27:15. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:28:07 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
a and b are mutually exclusive |
but they aren't mutually exclusive of e.
e incorporates all of the above, and is, IMO, the only important aspect of a good photo thus. |
No, but you can't have both together, if a even exists. That's my point. |
That's completely irrelevant. I'm not saying E incorporates all of the above, I'm saying all of the above incorporate E...
Ok, so I did say that, but I meant the second one. Miscommunication.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 20:28:49. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:28:33 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
a and b are mutually exclusive |
but they aren't mutually exclusive of e.
e incorporates all of the above, and is, IMO, the only important aspect of a good photo thus. |
No, but you can't have both together, if a even exists. That's my point. |
That's completely irrelevant. I'm not saying E incorporates all of the above, I'm saying all of the above incorporate E. |
Huh? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:29:59 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
That's completely irrelevant. I'm not saying E incorporates all of the above, I'm saying all of the above incorporate E. |
Huh? |
*sigh*. Sorry, I made my prior posts more clear with edits. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:31:15 PM · #23 |
| Wow, this is getting just as silly as most grad school discussions. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:32:57 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by mindbottling:
Wow, this is getting just as silly as most grad school discussions. |
It's DPC. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:49:21 PM · #25 |
|
