UKC

In reply to Sean Kelly:

It's a very difficult question to answer. To a non-photographer, their opinion of an image will be based mostly on the images subject rather than the techinicalities of photography, such as composition, choice of DOF, exposure, focal length to suit the subject etc. For me I'd balance it off between the two; this is a climbing forum rather than a photography forum, but I think a poor quality image can wreck the subject matter too. I hope I'm not too difficult to follow, it seems I'm all over the place on this post lol.

I do like that second image...although it looks like it has a few blown hilights lol.

In reply to Sean Kelly:


Not really. One's a 3 in my book (very nice pyramidal crag shape but the climber's been caught in a really uninspiring position - if his arms and legs were outstretched it would be a 4/5) and the other is a 3/4, as the climbers in the foreground are walking out of the shot (disrupting the eye) and there's also too much white in the foreground for me (lovely mountains and shapes in the background, though). I find I'm giving a lot of 4s these days but very few 5s (I don't bother giving 3 or below anymore).

In reply to Sean Kelly:

In my book, 'photos that make me think "I wish I was there" get a high mark.

So both of your examples count (although one would require a meteoric rise in my climbing standard)

Y.

In reply to Sean Kelly: A five from me when i wish that i'd taken the shot.

In reply to ericoides:


I agree, the Alaska shot doesnt do it for me, the walkers and tracks heading out of the frame and so close to the edge leave it unbalanced with the rest of the image.Its a shame as everything else about it looks amazing.

In reply to Sean Kelly:

When i first put pictures on here i would check to see the scores i was given, then on one of my photo's i had 97 x 5's and one person gave it a 1 ! Since then i am really more interested in the comments people give rather than a score.

Like another post, i only give 4's and 5's to people, but generally follow it up with some info in the comments section


Chris

In reply to Sean Kelly:

It does seem like if there is snow, ice and a fat arse in the shot it's guaranteed at least a 4.

E

In reply to Sean Kelly: On some occaisions the fact that you have had the prescence of mind to get the camers out in the circumstances makes a climbing picture worth a 5

In reply to Sean Kelly:

I actually prefer the shot of the climber on the ice covered wall, the other does nothing for me and if I voted it would be a 3. Neither is worth a 5 to me, but then we all have our likes and dislikes. I think I have only given a handful of bouldering shots a score, but then they have been 4-5 for the dynamics of the climber or expression on their face.

In reply to Sean Kelly: I give my self a 5 every time a take a photo. That's generally my criteria.

Seriously though, photos are for different reasons for different people. Some people like the aesthetic quality of one photo, where-as others like photos as reminders of achievments or to show things that they aspire to do. It's a very difficult question and I'm not going to answer it as I like photos, both as an art, and as a memory.

In reply to IainMunro: Exactly!

In reply to Sean Kelly:

I don't have any fixed criteria, it's just anything that immediately makes me think, for whatever reason, 'wow', and which doesn't have any jarring flaws. Over-saturation is a common one on here.

In reply to Sean Kelly:

I tend to vote based on my initial reaction to an image, where possible prior to reading the caption, so the more something catches my eye and inspires me the higher I'll rate it. I find it kind of sad that you gave the image of The Hurting a 2, for all of its lacking any evidence of photographic wizardry I find it an superb image of someone in an awfully intimitading postiion. I can perhaps see how you could rate it as 'Poor' from a technical point of view but doesn't the subject of the image, as depicted by the image, impress you at all?

In reply to Sean Kelly: i only vote 5 when i've posted it..
h

In reply to Sean Kelly:

To be honest I wonder if technical competence in photography sometimes clouds people's judgements about what makes a good photo. Some of the most supposedly accomplished images on here don't do it for me at all. Maybe it's a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

In reply to Sean Kelly:

Because you like it,

sometimes just capturing a situation/event/movment is merit enough,

othertimes composition arrangement of subject and depth including of field (different from situation)

sometimes just the balance of light, colour, contrast, exposure.

Most "pros" judge based on all the above and a few more relating to accuracy.

But some "timeless" images only have 1 good attribute, and since photgraphy should be enjoyed and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then if you like it it's good, but not necessarily in the eyes of all.

It's art after all

In reply to andy moles:


+1

In reply to Sean Kelly:



You could if you were being critical say the second image was out of proportion with the snow horizon cutting the image in half, thirds are usually more pleasing to the eye. You could also say the climbers walking out of shot, upsets the balance and depth. In fact if desired both could be torn to shreds with an over critical eye, but I bet they both hang on someones wall somewhere.

I like them both, for both different and similar reasons.

In reply to Sean Kelly:
No, I don't think you are being pedantic.

If I give a photo on here 5 it's because it's not just a picture that makes me go 'wow' from a climbing point of view but because it's technically good, well-composed, and well-seen (i.e., there's something special about the occasion the photo was taken, eg special light or special action - and this includes Al Evans's criterion).

Neither of the pictures that you showed warrant 5 on my criteria, so I agree with you about the first. It's a picture of a great climbing achievement but without the back-story to the photo, I doubt it'd have got 5s. 3 in my book.

The second picture is quite nice and captures the spirit of a climbing trip but the composition doesn't hold together for me: my eyes are led all over the place and I don't think this is an effect which improves the image. 4 in my book.

In reply to Sean Kelly: Somewhere in the depths of my collection I have a technically well exposed B&W photo of Pete Livesey on the first ascent of Downhill Racer at Froggatt. But the reason it has stayed in the depths of my collection is because its a crap image being mainly a 'bum' picture and arm obscuring the face. It might have historical interest but nothing else. If I voted for it on here I would struggle to give it a 1.

In reply to Sean Kelly:
I can never really get my head round a score for a photo but that's just me...
The two put forward; the first, well it's competent but it's the back story that makes it an important image not the image itself. The second one could have done with either party not both kinda drags the eye all over the place. Really nice mono though.

I really do like the images IainMunro selected, they just scream out with drama. You can feel the cold and there is something there that all of us that have been out in the winter can identify with.

In reply to Removed User:

Sean will doubtless be along soon enough, but for me, it's not so much the numerical score as the adjective, and since we all tend to describe photos using UKC's or similar adjectives, it seems natural enough to discuss them on here.

However, I think there is a case for Alan James sticking his head above the parapet and suggesting what the characteristics (differentiating criteria, even) of a "Superb" as opposed to a "Good" photo might be - if only to stimulate more thought and debate about what makes a really pleasing image.

In reply to Sean Kelly:

Essentially if the Hurting photo was posted up without the infamous route name, without the well known climber on it and without the associated news story would it generate much attention and a 5* rating? Almost certainly not. It's not really the image that is being voted for here but rather the ascent (which was of course outstanding).

Any photo associated with a news story is going to get viewed more than it would otherwise though, and once viewed I suspect there's often only an inclination to vote appreciatively, rather than negatively. And maybe a route's celebrity clouds judgement sometimes, just as much as technical wizardry in other cases ..

Whatever, we all take different inspirations

In reply to Sean Kelly: Not really - you vote what you think. If there was a universal agreement on what photos deserved what score, we wouldn't need a voting system, would we?

In reply to Sean Kelly:

To me the Alaska one is nce but why use black and white film when colour is so much nicer?

In reply to Sean Kelly:

For me, I'll give a 5 when an image ticks all these boxes, in no special order:

- content ..........(does the image tell a story or does it make you think or make you feel something new?)

- clarity.............(is the photo sharp - although there can be exceptions which still work for artistic reasons)

- shape ............(if you abstract the content from the image, do the lines appeal aesthetically?)

- colour / tone ...(as above)

- position ..........(is the photo taken from - or the subject in - an unusual / interesting position?)

In reply to Fraser:

Very well put.

In reply to Enty:

Great shot - I hadn't seen that one before. It definitely ticks all 5 of my boxes!

In reply to Enty:

I like that shot but it wouldn't get a 5 from me. The background is either too dull or not dark enough (if you see what I mean). A darker background would force my attention on to the climber, and a brighter background would add more context. At the moment the background is very obvious, and draws my eye but doesn't excite me. But that's just me.

As for the original question on the thread, I only tend to vote 5 if a picture makes me go 'wow' on first seeing it. I often vote 4, but I have to admit that I do vote lower on some photos when they get a 5 and I really don't agree. I suspect that what some posters have said is true - some pretty bad photos get a 5 vote to start with, which must be from themselves or a mate.

In reply to Sean Kelly:

This is my take: The first one has high emotional content then second is compositionally very good.

Both appeal to viewers in different ways, but in both people want to be there or would like to appreciate, or imagine being there.


I don't think so. That's how you feel about the images.

Both got a 5 from me. I like the lonely leader on the first taken by the belayer or bystander - it's an action shot that isn't set up, the composition and content of the second....and it really draws the eye, those curves toward the hills is very pleasing.

Both great photos.

Mick

Mick