What makes a interesting photo? What makes a extraordinary photo? Why my photo is just boring even it's almost technically perfect?

I want to develop a rating system to analysis my photos and others' to find out what makes a photo good and what makes it boring. So that I know what to shot (and what not to).

 

This really is my personal exercise only. The reason I put it here is this is a convenient safe place for me to come back to check it. The rating method is confuse enough even to myself.

 

Here is what I think, to me, an interesting / visually pleasing photo comes from four factors: the moment, the subject, the support environment, and the presentation. The weight of each is

 

40% the moment

30% the subject

20% support environment

10% presentation

 

To break this down, what I think they should represent and how I rate them are:

   

A:The moment (or the timing)

 

The moment tell a story. eg, a prefect street shot, not staged or directed. Score 90-100

 

The moment not happen a lot and pass very quick therefore hard to capture, and this moment create interestingness. eg, interesting single/group human/animal move(s), movements that create interesting abstract shapes, movements that create strong composition. Score 60-95

 

The moment with perfectly timed facial expression or posing (directed). eg, well posed erotic shot with attractive facial expression:) Score 70-85

 

The moment could last long enough but not happen all the time. eg, weather, cloud, sunset, interesting natural lighting. score up to 80

   

B: The subject

 

Pretty people, 80-100

 

Not pretty people but with character, 70-90

 

Cute/rare animal up to 70 - 90

 

Ordinary people and animal up to 70

 

Extraordinary object with extraordinary composition, eg, abstract architecture/tree composition. Up to 100

 

Beautiful object with ordinary composition, eg, sun, sea, landscape, architecture, macro. up to 80

 

Ordinary objects arranged together to create an interesting scene/composition, eg still life. 50 to 70

 

Ordinary objects with ordinary composition. eg, a random flower. up to 50

  

C: Support env / composition / lighting

 

(if the subject is lanscape, then sky/cloud is support env; if the subject is cloud/sun/star, then foreground is env)

 

The scene and lighting is visually interesting and gives extra info/emotion to the story. 80 to 100

 

The scene and lighting is interesting by itself but not necessary adding more interestingness to the moment/subject. eg nice boke. 70-85

 

The scene and lighting is supporting the moment/subject, help in overall composition, but by itself is not very interesting. eg, generic studio lighting. up to 70

 

The bg is not disturbing the subject and the overall composition is not off. eg clean bg. up to 60

 

The env is disturbing the subject and makes the overall composition totally off, 0

   

D:Presentation

 

Exposure, sharpness, media(film/digi), color grading, contrast, DR, post-processing, etc, that shows technical perfection and enhance the shot. up to 100

   

The final rating = A*40% + B*30% + C*20% + D*10%

 

Photos with

rating 90+ are world class masterpieces (those go to exhibition)

rating 80+ are extraordinary (those go into portfolio or print)

rating 70+ are interesting or visually pleasing

rating 60+ are technically good but ordinary, or interesting subject but poor presentation

rating 50+ are technically good but boring

rating 40+ are something you just want to be documentary

rating 40- are something to delete

 

I believe if I keep doing this systematic analysis exercise to my photos as well as others', I'll have a better idea of what makes a interesting photo and therefore make better pictures:)

 

Cheers