[Mann]

...regarding photography? Maybe my choice of words is unclear. For example, when you view a picture not made by you, what exactly do you pay attention to? Are you strict about technical superiority, and/or must a picture simply be emotionally overwhelming and/or artistic and/or must it simply "feel" right to you regardless of technicality?

[Cosmo]

Subject, light, comp. I'm not fussed over the technical side too much.

[TaoMaas]

...must it simply "feel" right to you regardless of technicality?

Yeah, that's pretty much it. I like photos that evoke an emotional reaction in me. That reaction could be in response to any number of factors...light, composition, subject, color, mood, or maybe even mystery. But it all starts with a general feeling I get when I first look at a pic.

[photolady95]

I look at photos as if I want it hanging on my livingroom wall. I look at my photos and think.......does it work for me, is it composed right, does it say "wow".....

You might pick up some pointers if you browse the comments in our "Post your Photos" forum.

[flippedgazelle]

I've never encountered a photo that evoked an emotional response from me, unless the subject itself was emotional - like, say, a firefighter rescuing a baby from a burning home.

Actually, I've just lied. I've seen many photos where my response has been "oh, that's awesome!" But that's because the photographer has done a wonderful job.

Staged photos do nothing for me on an emotional level, although I do appreciate and admire the artistry involved.

I fear I'm a poor critic, though. I tend to accept what the photographer has given me, and unless there is something really obviously wrong, I'm not overly useful in providing constructive criticism.

[attack11]

as a peer photographer i look for quality of work; ie metering/light, style & method, general artistic quailty

as a consumer i like things that look interesting or unique. sometimes a really bad photo is really good.

[séamuis]

the technical aspects are of no concern to me. the image subject should speak for itself. and that is how I try and capture photographs. more journalistic than artistic. of course I certainly know and practice (to an extent) the proper basics of photography, but im not afarid to break the rules, or ignore them completely. and I don't judge a photo on the technical aspects.. unless of course someone asks me to.

[Ash]

The beauty of photography is that it is an international language that doesn't require the viewer to be conversant with photographic lingo to appreciate its results. So I mostly go by the simple photographic adage: "Photos should have a subject, a background and nothing else". Works well in most instances, though taking risks, bending the rules and being unique usually pays off too.

I definitely look at the technical aspects of a picture because I like to see how a shot has been taken.
The emotional side is separate but must always be there for me, the picture has to interest me unless someone has specifically asked my opinion. But that goes back to the technical aspects.

[K McCall]

Ash, that's a beautiful synopsis of what I think works too.

[Marc Langille]

Agreed with Ash and Gary both. No sense repeating... and ultimately it's what matters to you.

I'll add one more thing: I prefer that the photo tells a story - then it's much more compelling for me.

Note/disclaimer: at the upper levels of wildlife and nature photography, technically excellent imagery is a must in nature/wildlife and most macro work - compounded by the very long hours needed to capture that sort of image in a brief window of time. That's a tough crowd to be in much of the time in that aspect. That doesn't mean they won't help - it's a standards expectation and thus a difficult area to succeed in.

Regards,
Marc

[Class A]

I'll add one more thing: I prefer that the photo tells a story - then it's much more compelling for me.

+1

There are some images that work well even though they just simply record a scene. In general, though, an image is stronger if it has a message and supports that message on several levels.

AFAIC, a great image needs to work subconsciously, it needs to work in a split second. You can rationalise about an image but, AFAIC, only in order to attempt explaining why works or why it doesn't work.

[K-9]

Where the image takes my eye and what message it sends through it.

[wallyb]

I only need to see two things in a photo to think it has potential to be great:

1) It shows me something that I don't usually see with my naked eye, be it extra detail, a different perspective, a unique subject, etc.

and

2) It has a clear style; if it is meant to be realistic, it has natural and realistic colors, and if it's meant to be fantasy, it has drawn a clear border there as well.

Everything else I critique on is usually just my own opinion, but I see the above two as very close to fact, that is, I haven't seen a great photo that didn't follow both of those simple guidelines.

[cbaytan]

Interpretation of the scene is most important, secondly if this interpretation emotionally means something to me or not.

If this interpretation of the composition&scene is the first ever done in the world, it is a fine art piece anyway.

Technical problems are technical problems, artist can straighten out those later in most cases.

Unique interpretation and reflecting this interpretation with a new artistic vision is the only thing I care about