Photo by Rebekah c. Hill
Becky's image captures the stillness of winter. There is a brief moment of transition from dark to light as the walls frame the expanse of snow and cold.
The most exciting part of working with developing photojournalists is to watch the progress from one week to the next.
Bruce Thorson, photojournalism professor at the University of Nebraska has been looking into how professors grade students' work.
I am sure there are many criteria depending on the level of skill, but I come to rationalize the evaluation process in terms of what could be published or not.
I grade the work with my students by simply asking them what they think the grade should be based on the following criteria.
Before we look at the picture in class, the student suggests what the grade should be (A-F). This always gives the students something to think about other than the usual "oh, I just liked it."
(A) This means we can publish this picture as it is. The image has all of the technical, compositional, and content-driven qualities needed.
There is a sense of immediacy, intensity, and intimacy in the frame.
However, the student still needs to defend the Publish Now argument. At times, when students aren't available, I use the same criteria but without a defense.
(B) We could the publish this picture if the toning, cropping and selection were just a bit better.
Basically, image needs improvement but it isn't total crap. Again student has to argue for the B grade.
(C) We wouldn't publish the picture, but the photographer clearly tried to make it work. What this means that there are deficiencies in terms of two of the three criterion of technique, composition, or content.
(NO GRADE) No effort. Never publish the picture (F) Student can't defend the effort or lack thereof.
It would be interesting to discover how other instructors evaluate student work. In this case, students seem to engage more in the critiquing process because they learn to self-evaluate the effort in a systematic way.