OregonSun wrote: gdanmitchell wrote: OregonSun wrote:
I also care about the 'quality' of photos. We probably don't share the same criteria for determining it, which of course is to be expected, since quality is a wholly subjective thing.
Can you be more specific about what you are saying about care for the quality of photos here and the criteria for determine it?
Honestly, all I can really say is 'I know it when I see it'. For me photos are more than the sum of their measurable parts (technical, compositional, artistic, etc.). Parsing the nuances of those parts on the internet is not particularly interesting to me.
I guess my main criteria is how well a photograph conveys a moment and/or elicits emotion. My favorite thing about photography is that it's a record of the real world in a particular time/place.
I believe strongly in "I know it when I see it," and I often try to get people who are too reliant of supposed formulas and rules to gain more experience "seeing" and then to go with their gut. (Someone once said that the "rules" are more appropriate tools for autopsies than for births.)
What I wondered about what the "I care about the quality of photos" might imply about others care for the same thing. I'll take it merely as a way of introducing your point that aesthetic quality (and, of course, appeal) involves a great deal of subjectivity.
Oct 04, 2025 at 12:15 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16902378 « Fuji for landscape »
