Why (when) is a photo "good"

<p>After a pause of reflection, I think that a good photo is based on a "<strong>good</strong>" <em><strong>approach </strong></em>and <em><strong>serious work</strong></em>.</p>

<p>There are no rules.</p>

<p>There are key characteristics of a photo - and of the photographer - which I would summarise in:</p>

<ol>

<li>viewing ability (look around, and see behind the obvious)</li>

<li>originality (something you don't see every day or from a common point of view);composition (the "art" of placing a frame around a scene;</li>

<li>research (interesting places for interesting situations);</li>

<li>study (knowing things may happen in certain places: actions but also lighting situations);</li>

<li>patience;</li>

<li>time (related to patience: waiting for things to happen);</li>

<li>knowledge of the tools and usage skills;</li>

<li>experience of photographs;</li>

<li>personal style;</li>

<li>constant and serious application, review and discussion;</li>

<li>editing.</li>

</ol>

<p>And another one: a skilled mate to help gain a distance. :-)</p>

<p>Some are probably innate, some can be acquired.</p>

<p>Combined together they <em><strong>could </strong></em>make a good photo.</p>

<p>It seems to me to be spot on. The only thing is I think there are two slightly different things in there - the likely conditions that may go to creating a good photo, and evaluating whether a photo is good.</p>

<p>I would add to your list what might be one of the most important of all - the photographer's passion for the subject. Of course, that may come through in the amount of time, research etc. spent, but with passion comes understanding and without it the picture may be dry.</p>

<p>So for example, a viewer may not know or care how much research or time went into creating the photo - they are just looking at the finished result. The finished result either has to be judged on its own merits, or perhaps with the benefit of some outside information too (nothing wrong with having some text, or being able to see the image in the context of the photographer's other work for example).</p>

<p>Having said that, it seems to me that the viewer should do his/her best to try to understand these things, insofar as they come through in the final image - in other words, be sensitive to where the photographer is coming from and try to understand it. That could mean that the research, study (and, hopefully, passion for the subject) comes through in the final image. The viewer can help by looking and trying to understand, even if the research etc. is not immediately obvious to the viewer. To put it a different way, the image may have a slow fuse, instead of presenting all its charms up front, the viewer may read more things into it the longer he/she looks at it.</p>

 

<p><strong>Simon</strong>,<br>

I would say that probably</p>

<ul>

<li>creating a good photo, and</li>

<li>evaluating when a photo is good</li>

</ul>

<p>are the two sides of the same "coin".<br>

I find it difficult to keep them apart.</p>

<p>Viewing, as you say, probably means understanding what is behind a photo. Two factors help: experience combined with talent, and time. Not everything is immediately perceptible.</p>

<p>As to <em>passion</em>: I did not mention it - and I did not think of it - because I consider it implicit and I believe that without it photography would not work.<br>

It has to be there, also considering the strong emotional element of photography and the (potential) strong sensorial involvement.</p>

My passion thought was prompted by something I read by Martin Parr - along the lines that good photography doesn't come from a passion for photography, it comes from a passion for the subject you're photographing.

<p>Photograph is not <em><strong>Good</strong></em> or <em><strong>Bad</strong></em>.</p>

<p>Photograph is a <em>document</em>, an evidence. It's a reality; in my opinion its the viewer's mindset who declares it <em><strong>Good </strong></em>or <em><strong>Bad</strong></em>. Photograph can be categorized as <em>Artistic,</em> when perceived one level higher than a <em>document</em>, and, that again is based on viewer's thinking i.e. some may classify a photograph as a work of <em>art </em>and some as just a <em>document</em>.</p>

<p>Would be happy if you put my statement on a firing range :)</p>

<p>Riz</p>

<p><strong>Riz</strong>,<br>

it is not necessarily reality.<br>

Not at all.</p>

<p>Even the strictest documentary only can show a scene with a rectangular frame around it. Leaving alone all those photos which are altered.</p>

<p>Photographing is manipulating. Framing manipulates, toning manipulates, black and white manipulates.</p>

<p>Around a photograph, but also around a painting, a statue, a creation, a musical work, any other sensorial experience there is the interaction between the one who produces it and the one who sees it, hears it, tastes it.<br>

One may like it or not, but we make a judgement, at least to ourselves.</p>

 

<p>Hi Luca, what an interesting thread. I think we may be making too much of this though. When used to denote a photograph, the concept of good can mean:<br>

a) Having the right or desired qualities<br>

b) Enjoyable or agreeable<br>

Whether something is enjoyable or agreeable is clearly idiosyncratic. Therefore, there can be no list of criteria or rules that define this. However, it is possible that the right or desired qualities of something are given by a set of rules or criteria. For instance, the right/desired qualities of a psychological test are reliability and validity. These criteria are given in the "Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests" and so are not idiosyncratic.<br>

I know of no such authoritative source for photographs. If no source exists, then it follows that right/desired qualities are idiosyncratic as well.<br>

So, what is a good photograph then? By definition it is one that an individual believes has the right/desirable qualities and/or is enjoyable to look at. These are personal. This is why we don't all think the same photographs are good photographs.<br>

Now, should we CARE what a novice thinks a good photograph is? If we want to sell it, perhaps. Otherwise, perhaps not.<br>

Should you trust yourself? Well, if you want to be able to guess what other people think is good, then perhaps not (as it seems from your post that you aren't very good at this). If you want to understand what great photographers think a good photograph is, then just read what they have written on the matter. If you want to please yourself, then trust yourself! JJ</p>

 

<p>Why is a Snicker's bar good? Why is Seared Ahi good? Rocky Road Ice Cream? All subjective.<br>

Why is Mozart good? When you compare Mozart to Beethoven who is better? All subjective.<br>

Photographs? The degree of "acceptance" of a good photograph will be marginally different depending on the person(s) who perceive it. If you are a photo competition judge, "good" means something different than it might to someone browsing in an art gallery and a photo exhibit. Is there good or bad art? <br>

My understanding of a good photograph is one that leaves me satisfied with what I have seen. Did I experience something? Maybe it was the composition. Maybe it was the subject. Maybe it was the colors or lack thereof (nice black & white tones). Maybe it was all of these.<br>

All forms of art requires some degree of technical skill. Some people will be impressed with the technical skill and say "that's good". Some will simply feel something and say the same.<br>

Then there are those who really don't pay that close attention but they like what they see and just peripherally indicate "that's good".<br>

All subjective. And...that's good. :)</p>

<p><strong>Jeremy and Lou,</strong><br>

thank you for your thoughts.<br>

The matter of subjectivity is very important. I deliberately said "good" and not "like" to mitigate this a bit, but I don't know to which extent I succeeded.<br>

In any case, everybody everywhere seems to be very conscious about what is good and what is not. There are strict raters, fierce editors, brutal directions towards the garbage can.<br>

And high praises ...<br>

Rules, apparently, do not apply. Or do they?<br>

There are mistakes, or not?<br>

My post came from the clear perception that yes, subjectivity is dominant, but also that there has to be something else.<br>

Maybe the capability to stir an emotion even without building on a relationship between the viewer and the subject ...<br>

Who knows?</p>