F stop, shutter speed, ISO, WB, grain character. Is there anything else?
Kidding aside, I suppose I only have three I consider. I look for continuity, composition, and resonance.
By Continuity, I mean the unification of technique and subject. Should there be thin depth of field or broad? Should it be blurred? Should it have hard contrast or soft? How well does the technique employed fit the subject?
Composition is mostly self explanatory for what I mean in general, but not specifically, and there's no way I can narrow that down more. I do, however, generally like a more dynamic composition, one which pulls me across or through a scene.
Resonance is how the shot resonates with me. It might be that I can literally FEEL the gloom or the joy of the subject, or it might just be a subject matter I have a natural affinity for (like rundown industrialscapes). What exactly does the shot evoke in me?
All of these are important, in one sense or another. They may be the most important thing I judge by, and ironically, a concerted effort to work against any of these can also be viewed favorably. There are times a static, stark and boring composition are correct to keep continuity, to evoke the message you want. Or maybe you want the viewer to feel ZERO connection to the subject. There are times for that too.
What I mean is each of the categories is worth all of my vote and none of it. Any one category can make or break a shot, so there's no checklist of "does it have X?" A photo is the unification of these together, a statement complete, in and of itself. Breaking it into arbitrary bits is to miss the nature of a photo altogether. My commentary may break it up, but that's only so that I can convey useful information. |
