Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ohkphoto" data-source="post: 162219" data-attributes="member: 1573">I don't think the elements of a merit image were meant to be individual or disjointed elements in analyzing a photo. . .  a previous mod thought that by just giving 1 point for each element would be easier than going a more subjective route.  For example,not every compelling or merit worthy image is meant to tell a story.  So a point for storytelling is really  moot.  I also understand the confusion with the 1 point per element . . . it doesn't seem really sensible.  What's the difference between an ok photo (gets to keep 1 point because the  lighting is adequate), and a fabulous photo with exceptionally creative lighting?  Does the lighting have to be poor to lose a point?  Then the decision has to be made as to what exactly defines "poor" lighting.Another example, when I critique a photo, the first thing I consider is, do I want to look at it again?  If not, why not, what's missing and what can be done better?  That's where the 12 merits come in.  If it is an image that grabs my attention, then I do a similar analysis using the 12 merits . . . what's striking about it, is the lighting exceptionally well done, is the composition exceptional and/or does it add to the story?  So for me, everything is based on impact first.  Not every element applies to every merit-worthy image.  As another case in point, think of some of photojournalism . . . high impact and story-telling, but maybe poor technique or composition.   Incidentally, I go through the same process/analysis when I "rate" and cull  my photos in Lightroom, which brings me to the next section.Without opening a can of worms, maybe it's worth considering a simple scale of 1-5, kind of like the Lightroom rating system.  Those of us who use Lightroom, hopefully rate our photos as we process them, so it's already familiar to most of us.   Then use the appropriate (not necessarily all) elements to give subjective comments about why it's a 5,4,etc. star photo.The biggest frustration for all of us who are trying to make this critique forum work is that many people who post a photo for critique don't really want a critique . . . sometimes the photo is the first one they shot with their new camera, sometimes it's poorly processed, poorly composed.  it's kind of like handing in a term paper to the professor without correcting typos or taking pride in the work.We really wanted this section to be a place where someone could get a very honest analysis of their photo . . . which means that in the poster's eyes, it should be a 5 star photo . . . the whole idea being, is what I consider a 5 star photo the same as what other members consider a 5 star photo . . . why or why not?  it should serve as a kind of reality check, which every photographer needs.I hope I made sense here.</blockquote>

Verification