File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
What makes a photo interesting? Hell yeah, I'm able to tell whether some particular photo is interesting or boring, but I can't really analyze it further and separate the different aspects of a photo that result in that feeling. Could some of you lead me to some sort of studies that shed light on that part of photography? Like some total fucking hardcore formal analysis of photographic and artistic elements. (I'm an engineer btw, lol)

I cannot be all subjective when the /p/ros of this board often quite unanimously praise or, more often, bash posted content.

TL;DR how to formally analyze whether a photo is interesting or boring

photo unrelated
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 450DCamera SoftwareDigital Photo ProfessionalImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2008:08:15 17:24:10Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating500Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias-0.7 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width666Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Honest So You Dont Have To Be !9UISPtwBPo
>TL;DR how to formally analyze whether a photo is interesting or boring

Look at it... is it interesting?

There is alot of technical bullshit that gets put into this, but nothing overrides that first impression, and for someone without the technical backing, the first impression is all they have.

Its VERY hard to get a feel of your own shots in less than a week (or so i find), If am not 100% sure, ill put it in a file and wait a week or so, look at it again, if the first reaction is "ive got somthing here" i go for it, do all the adjustments to polish it... but if that first reaction isnt there, away it goes, never to be seen.

There is no difference in skill between good photographers and great photographers... Just great ones don't show there shitty photos.
>> Anonymous
>>235956
what a remarkably unhelpful comment
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>235958
What you call technical bullshit is an attempt to explain formally what makes you feel interested. I know the golden rule and the rule of thirds. What else is there to this bullshit? That's what I'm asking.

pic unrelated, buns

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 450DCamera SoftwareDigital Photo ProfessionalImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2008:08:15 17:25:14Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias-0.7 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height666RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>235961
Do a google search on color theory and art composition. A lot of it will be in reference to painting, but applies to photography as well, for the end result. The way different shapes interact, different types of lines and movement, it goes pretty deep.
Otherwise, subject is still of central importance for an interesting photo. An photo that is technically average but with a particularly interesting subject will usually be "better" than something technically perfect with an uninteresting subject, or no real subject. Unless you're doing abstract photography, which generally proves the adage that it takes real skill to take an interesting picture of an uninteresting subject.
>> Anonymous
ITT: /p/ proves that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about
>> Anonymous
>>235952
>It cannot be all subjective when the /p/ros of this board often quite unanimously praise or, more often, bash posted content.

Yes, it can, and is.
It's subjective opinion based on what we see around us and are told is interesting.
People like pictures that look like things they've seen before. Film, advertising, television.
People are immediately attracted to things that seem familiar, though they can rarely explain why, and they usually try to explain it with bullshit rules instead of admitting that it's just gut reaction.
>> Anonymous
>>235972
Subjectivity. It's hard to describe.

I personally see the colors/contrast in an image first and then start to pick out shapes afterwards. If the photo is pretty conventional, then I criticize the approach to the subject more rather than the subject. If both however are in my taste, then I will like it. Though a bad photo can be seemingly "interesting" for a moment.

I usually find that most things have been done before, so it's not like you will see anything new. It's not "seen one, seen them all." The question should be whether or not this is done well and could it have been done better under the same conditions? I dislike comments that say "I wish that ______ wasn't there" when there isn't any possible way to avoid getting it in frame along with the subject. However, if it could have been avoided, then it would be valid.
In addition, fads come and go, like lomography, vignetting, light writing, etc, It's interesting to see what comes out of these cultural endeavors. But most of the time, it's done poorly. Essentially they are revisits to different aspects of photography and remind you that this particular tool can be used or exploited. Whether you use it or not is up to you. Sometimes we have to work outside our norms to get a better perspective even if conforming to a fad.