Can Non-photographers Really Understand the Quality of a Photo?

subpic · April 19, 2009

I've tried to get some photos rated by amateur or non-photographers. The question was whether each person liked the photo or not. They could just give each image a rating from 1 to 7.

Sadly, the resulting ratings were in most cases completely different from what I would have expected. Most people liked images that had in interesting subject or colors and that's about it, they didn't care about composition, lighting, image defects (because of high compression or low light noise).

Do you think it's possible that photo experience dramatically changes the way we perceive images and value them, or are the results I got really bad? What do you think?

Zebleys · April 19, 2009

I don't know how everyone else thinks but for me the subject is the first thing I always notice in a photo because that is what photography is all about for me: Subjects/themes. After that colors jump out. From there I find myself evaluating what I'm looking at as a photography student/advanced amateur. With learning, knowledge arrives. But if the non-photographers liked your photos despite being educated on all the details ... you did something right. Take a bow.

Not sure if answered the question in a way that helped.

Julie

Cygnus Studios · April 20, 2009

Personal taste is not limited to just photography. Other photographers are far more picky about composition, lighting, exposures, and all the other factors that make a good photo.
The only person that has to be happy is the person/client for whom the photo is intended.

TonyCooper · April 20, 2009

I think it's actually the more we get involved in the technique photography the more we forget the purpose of the photograph: to represent a scene. We get so caught up in the technical details of the representation that it doesn't register that the scene was captured.

My wife has no interest in photgraphy, but she has a P&S. She recently took a photograph of our grandchildren. I saw a badly composed photograph with distracting background and shadows on the faces because she was standing on the wrong side of the subject. She sees a photograph of our grandchildren. That's all she sees, and she likes the photograph.

subpic · April 21, 2009

TonyCooper wrote:

I think it's actually the more we get involved in the technique photography the more we forget the purpose of the photograph: to represent a scene. We get so caught up in the technical details of the representation that it doesn't register that the scene was captured.

My wife has no interest in photgraphy, but she has a P&S. She recently took a photograph of our grandchildren. I saw a badly composed photograph with distracting background and shadows on the faces because she was standing on the wrong side of the subject. She sees a photograph of our grandchildren. That's all she sees, and she likes the photograph.

Yes, it's usually like that for non-photographers. They always evaluate a scene by it's semantic interpretation. So, for them technical quality has apparently a far lesser impact. But does this mean that they are not influenced at all by the quality of the image, or possibly that they don't perceive it at all?

Just a thought, if you took the right shot (no shadows on the faces, no distracting background) could your wife say she likes the photo you took more than the one she did (ignoring that she'll probably want to tease/flatter you)?

Toshido · April 21, 2009

We could also ask if a photographer can truly appreciate the value of a photograph.

I know over the last year of reading this forum, and others. Using the SLR on a regular basis and trying to view photographs in a more critical manner the I look at photographs have changed.

Is it better or worse? What is the true value of a photograph? Is the value of a photograph just the sum of technical merits?

To simply answer your question though.

Yes non-photographers can understand the quality of a photograph. The difference is that they value different things.

TonyCooper · April 21, 2009

subpic wrote:

Yes, it's usually like that for non-photographers. They always evaluate a scene by it's semantic interpretation. So, for them technical quality has apparently a far lesser impact. But does this mean that they are not influenced at all by the quality of the image, or possibly that they don't perceive it at all?

Just a thought, if you took the right shot (no shadows on the faces, no distracting background) could your wife say she likes the photo you took more than the one she did (ignoring that she'll probably want to tease/flatter you)?

She would rank the two photos by the expression on the grandchild's face. Whichever photo was "cuter" would be the best. The technical improvements would not count towards "cuter".

She's right, though. When I choose from between several of my shots of the grandchildren, I will pick the one in which the subject comes off best. They may have all been taken to avoid bad background and shadows, but the first thing I'll look for is how the subject was caught.

catspaw · April 21, 2009

I think you need to better define 'quality' of a photo -- and provide comparisons.

I really DO believe that non-photographers *can* tell the difference in quality if given the same two photos, but one that is cropped so the composition is better, color improved, and printed well. The other is 'as is', perhaps slightly over or under-exposed, not as good composition, etc.

What you have to do is give them a choice -- they haven't the education to decide how to improve a photography, but they CAN see the 'better' improvements.

anonymouscuban · April 21, 2009

I am not a professional photographer. This is a hobby and quickly becoming a passion for me. Professonally I work for the largest medical device R&D and manufacturing company in the United States. I work for the Diabetes division, which is the only direct to consumer division in our company. The other divisions make products intended for hospitals or doctors.

I can draw very close parallels between this discussion and the balance we must strike, as a company, between what is technically the best and what our patient actually want.

I have had heated arguments with our engineers about what they think the patient needs and what our patients actually want. They will argue that a certain feature patients are asking for in a product is not necessary or if designed the way the patients want, it is not technically the best approach. They lose sight of the fact that our patients are not engineers, well not many of them. They are regular people that have no clue about the technical concepts or components that get design into the product. They have a need and are looking for our product to fulfill it. It doesn't matter if the inside workings of the device contain 100 technical breakthroughs. The patient only cares that the device is easy to use, meets their medical needs, and doesn't have a "clinical" look and feel.

I see us photographers as the engineers in this story. We often lose sight of what regular people look for in a photo because we place too much focus on the technical components. Some of the most famous photographs in history are technically not the best. What they are is a capture of a compelling moment in time. A moment that will never occur again but has been capture in an image.

Long story short... don't forget who you're taking the photographs for.

silversx80 · April 21, 2009

Cuban, I agree... and I happen to be an engineer

Art is about the interpretation, not the technical investment. I am not a professional, but I do consider myself an artist with photography as one of my venues. I learn the technical aspects so that I may better capture my vision, present my creativity/vision to an audience (even if it is only myself) and narrow the interpretation if I want to do so.

Cygnus Studios · April 21, 2009

anonymouscuban wrote:

I see us photographers as the engineers in this story. We often lose sight of what regular people look for in a photo because we place too much focus on the technical components. Some of the most famous photographs in history are technically not the best. What they are is a capture of a compelling moment in time. A moment that will never occur again but has been capture in an image.

I totally agree. Sometimes we (photographers) forget to consider the feel of the photo.
When given a selection of near equal quality, people choose based on a look over the small details. A shadow in the wrong spot, a little over/under exposed here and there, the wrong composition doesn't factor in. They simply like the shot.
It reminds me of the Apple Jacks commercials. They simply like it because they like it.

Consider how many times you have set up for a shot, then skipped it simply because the light wasn't just right, or the angle was just not there. Maybe the subject was just a little twisted. We have all been guilty of this at one point or another.
Then consider all the people who snap these shots with their P&S or other camera simply because they are there.

Every single day, thousands of people take photos of the Golden Gate Bridge.
They don't worry that the sun is harsh, that the fog is too thick, that the sky is pale white, that the water looks dark green, that boats get in the way, or that they are shooting from a weird angle. They simply don't care. They want to capture the scene that they see.
We could pick apart 95% of these shots. Does that subtract from what they hoped to capture?

If you walk by one of the photo studios in the mall and look at the examples hanging in the window, do you see what the clients see or do you pick apart the image?

The little details that we focus on are completely different. Now everyone can see lots of under / over exposure, blurry, or bad composed shots, but what we cull out would satisfy the majority who see them.

JustPlainMe · April 21, 2009

I'm not a professional pianist, but I am classically trained and am fairly accomplished as an amateur/hobbyist (my musicianship is much better than my photography). If you put me next to Emmanuel Ax, for instance, my Chopin would sound pretty paltry, lame, weak, and unsophisticated next to his. However, just because that's the case doesn't mean I can't interpret someone's playing who is much more skilled than I, albeit carefully, and humbly.

I am able to listen and hear how he interprets the music, how skillfully he plays; is his velocity even, how about the dynamics? I know, as a musician, that sloppy fingering and poor hand position will affect the performance of a piece. I can hear it, and I know what causes it. But the average listener who is truly engaged might hear the result of that problem, but not be able to tell me what caused it. I don't think that means they are less able to appreciate the art form, it's just a different dimension.

The artist knows the techniques that come together as the means to the end; the observer might only know the end. They can't necessarily tell you the means, they might not be able to make decisions about lighting, angle, composition, exposure, etc., but they still can see objective differences between a crappy photo and a good one, at different levels.

Of course, discerning finer details at higher levels requires more understanding, education, and investment by the observer. Certainly there are refined levels of appreciation; I probably appreciate Gottschalk's "The Banjo" more than the average listener because I know the unbelievable difficulty of the piece and the masterful technique required to play it well. But everyone would appreciate the artistry of it at a basic level.

I bet a philosophical discussion like this could go on forever! Very thought-provoking.

Nikolai · April 21, 2009

It's Photography 101:
---
Q: how many photographers is needed to take a picture?
A: 101.
1 to take it and 100 to tell him what he did wrong and how they would make it different/better.
---

It really depends on the client. If you target a soccer mom, you can rest assured most wouldn't care about the fine technical qualities as long as their "player" is in the picture and looks cute enough. However, if you go for a gallery submission - you better be damn sure your techniques are up to the challenge...

"He who pays chooses".

Tee Why · April 24, 2009

subpic wrote:

... Do you think it's possible that photo experience dramatically changes the way we perceive images and value them, or are the results I got really bad? What do you think?

I think somewhat. If you are proficient in photography, you can see the technical faults. However, for me, photography is to convey a sense of emotion/feeling/idea that the shooter has to the audience.

So you just need enough sharpness, noise control, etc so that it does not distract from the role of the photo, to convey a feeling or an idea. Some of the greatest photos have softness, blur, grain, and other technical flaws, but they all share an important thing, they convey an emotion or a thought and have visual impact and make you stare into the image. Granted, technical proficiency is more important in some areas more than others.

I think non photographers can appreciate the beauty and the emotion of the image, sometimes without knowing why or how it was done.

Some measurebators only see noise, distortion, improper colors, and focusing issues, and other technical issues. They just can't see the forest from the trees.

But a photographer should ideally see the visual impact of the image as a whole while also being able to discern the technical proficiency of the shot as well.

Can Non-photographers Really Understand the Quality of a Photo?

Comments