In the photography world things are not quite that simple, because _you_ make a conscious decision on how you photograph something.

For example:


Are all the 'same thing' but just as you can view them differently in 'real life' you can capture them differently too. That is the whole point of photography - unfortunately not everyone gets that straight away, and that's why your picture of some fruit will be different from someone else's picture of the same fruit. Just look at out 'post a pic' section for a loose example

Ps they were just iphone pics I had lying around - to demonstrate the point further I'd ideally have had liked some taken from a distance, macro, etc... but of the 'same' thing - to show the 'same thing' can look, or be captured differently.

Steve was a joke made to illustrate a point.

I totally agree with the points made by Ste and Moonie.

Photography is a means to an end. Content, creativity, interpretation is crucial, how those elements are merged and presented is for the individual and for the viewer to judge but as always, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

jeff

I am absolutely shocked to learn this evening that there are some wildlife competitions that now require the original, unedited RAW file alongside the edited image - because you're 'not allowed' to edit stuff any more!

I find that really worrying actually, and would put me off entering such competitions, regardless of whether or not I'd edited a shot - as it just shows ignorance above all! :/

Actually, this thing seems to be mostly a wildlife photography thing - I don't see it nearly so much with landscape stuff, and certainly not portrait! It does put one off wildlife stuff as so many of the people involved are so unpleasant I guess it's because it's so very accessible, and provided you have patience and the right equipment, you can get shots that really wow people who aren't into photography. Without actually really working at it or editing or anything much - just shots!

Just rambling now

xx

Do you think the wildlife thing is just to check that the creature you shot you present is an accurate representation of the setting/ situation.
So the editing etc is fine - they just want to make sure you haven't taken a photo in a zoo then made it look like the countryside - as in the case of that wolf photograph.

I'm not sure! But I hope it's for better reason than so called 'purism' because that would be very sad indeed! Mind, the person who mentioned this said that it was to see that the shot hadn't been heavily edited, so that it looked pretty much SOOC :/

xx

I'm not experienced enough to get into a debate about pure or not, but I would like to answer the original question from my novice standpoint.

When I look at a picture, my main 'thing' is focus, then composition. I think focus on the eyes in people and animal portraits, and having that light, really makes them pop and come alive. Until a recent picture I posted I didn't realise how important it was to me, now I'm noticing it all the time!

I also like interesting compositions and poses/arrangements. I don't mind distracting backgrounds so long as it's not too distracting and compliments the picture. I like interesting takes on old concepts - like animal and people portrait, or still life from a new perspective.

'Judging' what makes a photograph 'technically' good is one thing and reading the comments so far it's fair to say that the criteria I look for have been covered - Exposure, composition etc etc.

For me though, whether I like a photograph is less about the technical aspects and much more about the content.

I will nearly always like a picture of my favourite mountain or an osprey catching a fish even if It wasn't a particularly good photograph.