There are five categories that I've broken it down into, and assign anywhere from 0 to 2 point in each, creating a nice X-out-of-10 rating. The higher the score, the more "me" the photo is. (As with all of these arbitrary and subjective ratings, intermediate scores and half-points are encouraged.) Here's how it works:
Picture Space: The flatter the better. A photo with a foreground and background with deep focus, like the receding streets of 44th and 5th, would score a "0". A photo where the entire frame consists of a brick wall – not an uncommon thing for me, even outside of my lens reviews – would score "2".
Geometry: For maximum points, we need straight lines, right angles, and square corners. Diagonals are rare, and there are no curves. A score of zero would be something like a field of wildflowers – not that I've ever taken one of those. An intermediate score of "1" would go to something like "Blue", where a composition of curves is still anchored by a line that's parallel to the bottom of the frame.
Framing: A 'passive' frame, which is simply where the photo ends and has no relation to the space or the subject, is a zero. A composition in which the frame creates negative space that's important to the success of the photo, such as my Lakefill series, would be a "1". For full points, the photo needs to have a subject or composition that's entirely created by the camera frame.
Words: Sometimes text and its treatment is the entire subject of a photo, which is worth "2", and if it's important in some way then I'll score that as a "1.5". If there's any legible text, then that still earns a "1".
Suitability: Somewhat recursively, this is an evaluation of the "matthewness" of the subject. Camera-clubby images of lonely trees, lonely docks, dilapidated barns, diaphanous flowers, and long-exposure streams are an emphatic zero, if not an outright deduction. On the other hand, people occasionally remember me for my abstracted photos of signs, so that would be a "2". Humour counts for something here, too.
I previously called "Swimming Pool Vicinity" the most 'me' of all of my photos. It scores a 8.5 out of 10 on this scale, being marked down only a half-point each for 'words', 'picture space', and 'framing'. Conversely, "Coney Island, 18 June 2011" shows few of my usual traits, would only acquire one point each for 'picture space' and 'suitability', with maybe a half-point for 'framing'.
It's not that this scale has any actual utility, or that I use it in evaluating or ranking photos in any way, but it's an amusing exercise for me to pass the time and a different framework to think about my favourites.
Comments, questions, thoughts? You can find me on Twitter or via e-mail.
