Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Body of work
35% weight
Review published portfolios: editorial credits (BBC Wildlife, Nat Geo), agency representation such as Nature Picture Library or Getty, competition placings, and species or habitats they own.
Evidence to listen for
Has work that exists publicly and can be checked
States what they made versus what they contributed to
Can talk about range as well as their signature style
Knows how the work was received and by whom
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Nothing finished or public; describes intentions rather than output.
2
Needs Improvement
Small or unverifiable body of work; unclear personal contribution.
3
Satisfactory
Real output with adequate range; reception described vaguely.
4
Very Good
Substantial verifiable work with clear ownership and range.
5
Excellent
Shows a coherent published body of work with named outlets, agency contracts, and repeat commissions on specific species or ecosystems.
02
Evaluation factor
Craft and technique
25% weight
Probe optics and field technique: 500mm or 600mm prime handling, back-button and animal eye AF, camera trap rigs, hide craft, low-light exposure, raw workflow in Lightroom or Capture One.
Evidence to listen for
Can discuss technique concretely rather than in terms of feel or vibe
Names influences and what they took from each
Explains a deliberate choice and the effect it was for
Knows their own weak areas and what they do about them
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No technical vocabulary; cannot discuss choices behind the work.
2
Needs Improvement
Talks in generalities; choices sound accidental.
3
Satisfactory
Solid craft with some ability to explain decisions.
4
Very Good
Articulate about technique and deliberate about effect.
5
Excellent
Explains lens, autofocus, and lighting choices per situation, and demonstrates camera trap or hide setups built for specific animal behaviour.
03
Evaluation factor
Reliability and process
25% weight
Assess expedition planning: permits, Schedule 1 or protected species licences, drone A2 CofC, backup and card management in the field, insurance, and delivery deadlines from remote locations.
Evidence to listen for
Meets deadlines and briefs, with evidence
Handles revisions and direction without ego
Describes how they work when the brief is vague or changes late
Has repeat clients, bookings, or collaborators
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Misses commitments; cannot take direction.
2
Needs Improvement
Inconsistent delivery; defensive about revisions.
3
Satisfactory
Reliable on clear briefs; struggles when direction shifts.
4
Very Good
Consistently delivers and adapts; repeat collaborators.
5
Excellent
Plans shoots around licensing and weather windows, keeps redundant backups, and delivers captioned, IPTC tagged edits on schedule after long field trips.
04
Evaluation factor
Presence with an audience
15% weight
Look for audience-facing work: guiding photo tours, festival talks, workshop teaching, conservation NGO partnerships, and how they grow reach through social or print sales.
Evidence to listen for
Comfortable performing or presenting on demand, including cold
Reads a room and adjusts
Handles a bad night, a difficult client, or a hostile crowd without unravelling
Represents the employer well in front of others
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot perform or present on request; unravels under pressure.
2
Needs Improvement
Rigid delivery; no read of the room.
3
Satisfactory
Competent in familiar settings; less adaptable in new ones.
4
Very Good
Strong presence and adapts to the room.
5
Excellent
Holds attention with a clear conservation narrative, guides paying clients well, and converts fieldwork into talks, prints, or NGO collaborations.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
