Judging a landscape (opinion)

[Ben Egbert]

A few years back, I had a discussion with a forum member at another forum with the screen name AuntiPode. I developed a way to judge landscapes from that interchange as follow, starting with re quote.

To quote AuntiPode:

“Great images have a gestalt that is greater than the sum of their parts. I rate subject and composition as the two most important aspects of an image. Subject is what it intends to say and composition is the structure to say”

Critique of a landscape.

Visual impact is what grabs our attention at first glance. This could be the typical stuff, bright colors, a sunset, cloud formation crashing wave etc. But some images are subtle and have no immediate impact and must be viewed closer. Some subtle images are very good, but the first impact is still important for popular appeal. A wow image that does not pass closer inspection will at least get a first glance while a subtle one that is great up close may be passed by. But when it is our job to judge, this does not matter because we must judge all images and get past this point.


Image quality. Once your attention has been drawn to the image, you ask these questions:

Note, this is a landscape, not an abstract or portrait or close up or altered reality. When affects appropriate to other venues are applied, it changes venue.

1. Is the color/saturation believable?

2. Is the exposure and tonal range believable?

3. Is it sharp and in focus?

4. Halos, gritty look, over sharpened?

5. Is the contrast good?

6. Does it seem to have a true black and true white?

7. Obvious cloning, dodging or burning.

8. Dust spots or other artifacts that should have been cleaned up.

9. Vignette that is not intentional. Ignore if intentional.

10. Subject motion. Ok for water, not much else.

11. Is it clean? It should look like it was taken through a clear glass window.

12. Is there distortion? Leaning trees?

Composition:

1. Are all the elements pleasing or seem like they belong?

2. Is there some single element that is more important than the rest?

3. If so, is it made to be prominent?

4. Are there elements that ought not to be in the image?

5. Could they be eliminated by viewing angle or cropping?

6. Does this look the way you might expect to view the scene in person?

7. Is the scene itself something worth looking at?

8. How soon would you tire of this if it were a print or a screensaver?

9. Does the composition give it a strong and coherent message?

10. Is the composition balanced?

Intrinsic value. This is how the image works for you in spite of the other factors or the sum of the parts in Aunti’s words.

1. Does the image speak to the emotions.

2. Is this a great image?

3. How does it rank on a greatness range?

4. If it is being judged in a contest, where does it rank with respect to the other images?

5. If not in a contest, how does it stack up relative to images you have seen?


Weight.


1. Image quality is a litmus test at least for judges because it flunks if insufficient.


2. Intrinsic value moves to first if image quality is sufficient.


3. Impact is 3d in importance to me if not the general public.


4. Composition is probably like image quality, if it does not work, the image will have less intrinsic value.


Here is my thinking.


No matter how much impact an image has, if the image quality is poor, it is a poor image. Image quality does not matter for something of historical significance, but landscapes are usually not historically important. And one with poor image quality is of low value.


Intrinsic value is a macro judgment, one that transcends all other items while being a composite of them at the same time. Being a combination of them all it is not easy to dissect. It comes from the heart not the mind and is not so easy to analyze.


Composition is one of those things that I know after the fact, but cannot define. I prefer to include it into the intrinsic value area. For some, composition can be analyzed, but to me it can only be described in some generalized way and is part of the art.


A high impact image with average image quality has less value to me than a subtle image with better image quality. In fact a subtle image really needs the image quality to shine because often it’s the fine details that make it stand apart, like the fine texture and accurate color of an old tree for example.



Subject value and image quality are both more important to me than composition. Extraneous things will cause a lower judgment, but I don’t need to be guided. My composition check list does not include stuff like leading lines and rule of thirds. If the scene is homogenous and interesting and looks like a place I might stop and look at in person, it is pretty close to meeting my composition rules.

 

[Darcy Grizzle]

Hmmm, this is pretty deep but I like it. And it made me think about my recent entry into the fruit contest. Yes my lemons are the focal point, which is the fruit. And yes the image tells the story that I was cooking with the lemon, as obvious by the pan and the kitchen background. But could I have really told the same story without the background, just focusing more on the lemons, cutting board & knife, without the pan, salt shaker, butter dish. That way the lemons are even more the subject value, as the theme suggests, and you could still see the story with the knife & cutting board....and not the added elements of the pan etc.

Does my image invoke emotion...sort of, it makes me happy as I love to cook. The contrast is good, the tonal range is good, the saturation/color are believable. The lemons are sharp & in focus, at least the ones I was focusing on. I might should have increased my f-stop instead of shooting wide open for the blur now that I look at it again, the knife could be more in focus with the lemons.

Going down the checklist, all the elements seem like they belong. But the lemons are most important & the image could maybe have been stronger without the background of the kitchen elements. If you like to cook, the scene may be something you would like to look at, and it looks like something I viewed in person hahah since I was there!

I think the comp is balanced, to me it is, but don't know that it gives a strong & coherent message, to me it does. But I am not pro, and still learning, and that is one reason I really like your opinion post

In a cooking contest it may get looked at, but maybe not so much fruit

How does it stack up to relative images I have seen ...I still like my image, but there are things that can be improved upon.

Thanks Ben, this was really something to think about & put into use for future photography. whether landscape or any other photo!

 

[Ben Egbert]

Hi Darcy, yes it was about landscapes, but perhaps it can extend into other forums. Note that I labeled this as opinion because I have seen over the years that many very good photographers have other views. So please keep that in mind.

 

[Darcy Grizzle]

Hi Darcy, yes it was about landscapes, but perhaps it can extend into other forums. Note that I labeled this as opinion because I have seen over the years that many very good photographers have other views. So please keep that in mind.

Oh yes I know it was on opinion, but it really applies I believe to all photo's, and it is a good thing to think about. I know I will be thinking a little differently now, and I only used my fruit entry as an example to go down the check list. What I like is it gives you a check list more or less for every photo you take. Someday I may hit the looking thru glass mark as I haven't gotten there yet

 

[JimFox]

....have a gestalt....

Not sure if the photograph is pregnant or not?

Here I thought I have a pretty good vocabulary, but I don't think I have ever heard that word before.



You do have some very good thoughts here Ben. And whether anyone agrees with every single point, there are valid thoughts. And it's funny as I looked through that list where there is probably 20 or 30 criteria you listed and wondered in amazement at our brain thinking that we all probably do evaluations mentally on every photo we see or observe and in a split second all of those criteria and gone through in our mind. Quite amazing.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Not my word, it was AuntyPods quote, but it means:

an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.


Thanks Jim, as you see I put it here as an opinion piece so that it would not be perceived as some universal truth. I hope in fact to just get people thinking about it.

 

[Jeffrey]

There sure are quite a few attributes that make up a good image it seems. You covered all I can imagine and more.. For me, there is one that outweighs them all by far: Does the image immediately evoke an emotional response from the viewer. I know in the first few seconds if I am viewing one that does. If not, then I must study the image to find if any of those other aspects are present to still make the image significant. Sometimes I am still enjoying the image if some are met. But when it moves me strongly and instantly, I don't have to think of any of them.

 

[Ben Egbert]

There sure are quite a few attributes that make up a good image it seems. You covered all I can imagine and more.. For me, there is one that outweighs them all by far: Does the image immediately evoke an emotional response from the viewer. I know in the first few seconds if I am viewing one that does. If not, then I must study the image to find if any of those other aspects are present to still make the image significant. Sometimes I am still enjoying the image if some are met. But when it moves me strongly and instantly, I don't have to think of any of them.

This is very true Jeffrey. I knew what I liked well before I started trying to analyze it. I suppose the main thing that got me started down this path was the disagreements I had over the years.

As you know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Two people could see the same image and apply the same criteria and come to different conclusions, it's all a matter of judgement.

In the end, I wanted to affirm my personal judgement.

 

[Jeffrey]

In the end, I wanted to affirm my personal judgement.

And that is what you should do with every judgement or image you make.

 

[AlanLichty]

It is interesting for me to go back and consider what it is that compels me to shoot any specific image. I have been trying to frame landscape images since well before I wasn't old enough to drive and through the years to urge to frame any specific subject almost feels instinctual but I'm not sure I have ever tried to quantify how I "see" a shot when I go into autopilot and splay out the tripod legs and dive in...

I have always followed the urge to share what I seen in a scene to an audience beyond just myself.

Your thoughts here feel like a pretty good mental checklist for things to consider.....

 

[JimFox]

There sure are quite a few attributes that make up a good image it seems. You covered all I can imagine and more.. For me, there is one that outweighs them all by far: Does the image immediately evoke an emotional response from the viewer. I know in the first few seconds if I am viewing one that does. If not, then I must study the image to find if any of those other aspects are present to still make the image significant. Sometimes I am still enjoying the image if some are met. But when it moves me strongly and instantly, I don't have to think of any of them.

Great point Jeffrey. I agree that's probably the #1 point, does the photo immediately evoke an emotional response.

If it doesn't, then that's where Ben's list could come into play in trying to find out why.

 

[JimFox]

Congrats on the Daily Featured Post Ben!

 

[Ben Egbert]

Why shucks, I never thought this would make featured thread.

 

[Ben Egbert]

For what it's worth, I am not using this method to comment on images in this forum. At least not at the present. The above words are an idealized method to judge perfection, and like all absolutes reality falls short of any ideal. Some images are indeed great art, the majority are simply well wrought images and that in itself is worthy of praise for the average person and I hate to see anyone ignored.

 

[Jameel Hyder]

Ben, as I read and re-read your post it is interesting how many of the things ininstinctly look for when I look at an image - either my own or someone else’s. However when I am shooting, a very different mindset prevails.

A very nice post. Thanks for taking the time to put it together. Hopefully it wasn’t all left handed

 

[Ben Egbert]

Ben, as I read and re-read your post it is interesting how many of the things ininstinctly look for when I look at an image - either my own or someone else’s. However when I am shooting, a very different mindset prevails.

A very nice post. Thanks for taking the time to put it together. Hopefully it wasn’t all left handed

I wrote this years ago, but revised it for here and I am cheating the sling these day to type more or less normally.

 

[Tom Narwid]

A few years back, I had a discussion with a forum member at another forum with the screen name AuntiPode. I developed a way to judge landscapes from that interchange as follow, starting with re quote.

To quote AuntiPode:

“Great images have a gestalt that is greater than the sum of their parts. I rate subject and composition as the two most important aspects of an image. Subject is what it intends to say and composition is the structure to say”

Critique of a landscape.

Visual impact is what grabs our attention at first glance. This could be the typical stuff, bright colors, a sunset, cloud formation crashing wave etc. But some images are subtle and have no immediate impact and must be viewed closer. Some subtle images are very good, but the first impact is still important for popular appeal. A wow image that does not pass closer inspection will at least get a first glance while a subtle one that is great up close may be passed by. But when it is our job to judge, this does not matter because we must judge all images and get past this point.


Image quality. Once your attention has been drawn to the image, you ask these questions:

Note, this is a landscape, not an abstract or portrait or close up or altered reality. When affects appropriate to other venues are applied, it changes venue.

1. Is the color/saturation believable?

2. Is the exposure and tonal range believable?

3. Is it sharp and in focus?

4. Halos, gritty look, over sharpened?

5. Is the contrast good?

6. Does it seem to have a true black and true white?

7. Obvious cloning, dodging or burning.

8. Dust spots or other artifacts that should have been cleaned up.

9. Vignette that is not intentional. Ignore if intentional.

10. Subject motion. Ok for water, not much else.

11. Is it clean? It should look like it was taken through a clear glass window.

12. Is there distortion? Leaning trees?

Composition:

1. Are all the elements pleasing or seem like they belong?

2. Is there some single element that is more important than the rest?

3. If so, is it made to be prominent?

4. Are there elements that ought not to be in the image?

5. Could they be eliminated by viewing angle or cropping?

6. Does this look the way you might expect to view the scene in person?

7. Is the scene itself something worth looking at?

8. How soon would you tire of this if it were a print or a screensaver?

9. Does the composition give it a strong and coherent message?

10. Is the composition balanced?

Intrinsic value. This is how the image works for you in spite of the other factors or the sum of the parts in Aunti’s words.

1. Does the image speak to the emotions.

2. Is this a great image?

3. How does it rank on a greatness range?

4. If it is being judged in a contest, where does it rank with respect to the other images?

5. If not in a contest, how does it stack up relative to images you have seen?


Weight.


1. Image quality is a litmus test at least for judges because it flunks if insufficient.


2. Intrinsic value moves to first if image quality is sufficient.


3. Impact is 3d in importance to me if not the general public.


4. Composition is probably like image quality, if it does not work, the image will have less intrinsic value.


Here is my thinking.


No matter how much impact an image has, if the image quality is poor, it is a poor image. Image quality does not matter for something of historical significance, but landscapes are usually not historically important. And one with poor image quality is of low value.


Intrinsic value is a macro judgment, one that transcends all other items while being a composite of them at the same time. Being a combination of them all it is not easy to dissect. It comes from the heart not the mind and is not so easy to analyze.


Composition is one of those things that I know after the fact, but cannot define. I prefer to include it into the intrinsic value area. For some, composition can be analyzed, but to me it can only be described in some generalized way and is part of the art.


A high impact image with average image quality has less value to me than a subtle image with better image quality. In fact a subtle image really needs the image quality to shine because often it’s the fine details that make it stand apart, like the fine texture and accurate color of an old tree for example.



Subject value and image quality are both more important to me than composition. Extraneous things will cause a lower judgment, but I don’t need to be guided. My composition check list does not include stuff like leading lines and rule of thirds. If the scene is homogenous and interesting and looks like a place I might stop and look at in person, it is pretty close to meeting my composition rules.

Excellent thoughts Ben. You covered it all.

 

[JimFox]

Ben, as I read and re-read your post it is interesting how many of the things ininstinctly look for when I look at an image - either my own or someone else’s. However when I am shooting, a very different mindset prevails.

A very nice post. Thanks for taking the time to put it together. Hopefully it wasn’t all left handed

I am guessing that without our even realizing it, when we are out shooting, a lot of these things are processed in our subconscious and we don't even realize it? Or maybe in those times while we are shooting, does our mind have a shortened version of this?

I know when I am shooting, I am processing both the light and the composition. So I balance the scene in my mind and then in the camera to compose it, and then I process what the lighting is and how to expose for it. I am sure there is more I am thinking then just those 2 things?

 

[Ben Egbert]

I have been a nature lover all my life, I never stop, when I am driving, heck, even when I used to race motorcycles in the desert, I would ask my buddies if they saw the flowers and they said what flowers? I saw Mt Whitney at age 14 and wanted to take a picture with the Brownie I had.

I was so disappointed in the outcome that I was put off from photography for at least 30 years. I tried painting too. So yes, the scene and the light is what grabs me. I want to capture what I see, and I tend to see everything. mastering the technical aspects does take time but can be done these days pretty well. But our judgement of what is worthy is very personal.

One area I have not touched on here is the value of our judgement. I am a bit color challenged and a lot sharpness challenged. So what looks like good quality to me is lower for people with better vision.