The concept of this set of rules is to try and be more objective when evaluating photography. I see countless examples of fantastic work by people, but too often the stuff that turns heads can be unworthy of praise. The rules take the form of a set of questions to pose when looking at the photo(s)
Using black and white is a valid way to use colour to emphasize shape or form. However, it can just be used to make a dull or uninteresting photo stand out. This rule could also be extending into ‘or does it use a fancy filter’, but you get my point.
A bit of care here; if a set of photos represents a portfolio with an underlying message then it is perfectly valid to present them as a set, or in a book. However, lining a set of poorly composed and unrelated photos together is a ‘get out of jail’ card for some photographers. Think Instagram here - arranging a large number of photos together can give an overall impression that any individual photo doesn’t warrant.
This one may seem silly, but cropping when done well can have a big impact on the overall presentation of a photo. And using the square format for this can emphasize your artistic point. But I’ve noticed some photographers seem to use the format as a starting point, as if the photo being square was its raison d’etre.
Yes, I’m looking at you Annie Leibovitz. I’ve never been so disappointed at a photography exhibition as seeing her work in London once. She’d been commissioned to do some landscape work (not her area of strength) so chose to exhibit these as wall-filling shots. They were anything but impressive. The same applies for work you see casually hung in restaurants as a way to fill space. The acid test is if the photo was standard size, would it impress so much?