What do you appreciate most in a picture?

Hello there!

What do you appreciate (like) in the picture when look at it? Technical proficiency? Color palette? Lifestyle in the photo? The name of the creator? The story behind it? Your own variants.

Depends on the picture.

I prefer sharp (in focus) photos, unless the point of the photo is to show motion or otherwise have a blurry subject. Next, as The Shadow says, "depends on the picture.

Depends :)

The Connection

Technical perfection, perfectly expresses the theme, or 180 degrees off theme but still works, and jealously thats its not one of mine.

Ability to conjure/release narrative, mystery, ambiguity, emotional pull, hidden elements/information, connection if a person is involved, environmental context if appropriate, gravitas, heft, etc, just to name a few, and depending on the subject matter.

The surprise

I like to see a combination of great composition, technical proficiency, and story. I guess those things come in different orders for different types of photos but I think good photos need them all. Gosh... just three things; sounds like it should be pretty easy! =:-0

 

Stay sharp,

Bob

You just know it when you see it. :-)

Does the image startle the eye or tug at the heart strings? In focus, level horizon if water is involved and well composed. Easy, right?

The big three are composition, content and lighting, all products of the photographer. Technical details like proper focus and exposure are the responsibility of the photographer, and simply expected without formal acknowledgement. Sharpness, resolution and focal length are among the properties of the equipment, not in the photographer's control other than his choices in acquisition.

 

My personal preference involves landscapes, in which composition and sharpness reign supreme I can appreciate other subjects and styles, but have no particular interest in pursuing them myself, at least on a regular basis. Close-up photography, to me, represents landscapes writ small.

The achievement by photographers of the tasks they have set themselves, insofar as I can tell what those goals were.

 

Both Karsh and Ansel Adams have been criticized by the arty set, but both seem to me to score very high on the realization of their goals.

 

Even Mortensen achieves his goals quite well, however tasteless those goals may have been.

Both Karsh and Ansel Adams have been criticized by the arty set, but both seem to me to score very high on the realization of their goals.

I’m sure all famous photographers have been criticized by people on the street as well, who’ve never even visited a trendy gallery.

 

I think the arty set and the non-arty set can admire someone who’s able to achieve their goals, if that’s their perspective, without necessarily appreciating the photo they’re looking at as a result. I can and I straddle both sets depending on whether I’m wearing my scarf, sunglasses and fedora or not.:)

"bility to conjure/release narrative, mystery, ambiguity, emotional pull, hidden elements/information, connection if a person is involved, environmental context if appropriate, gravitas, heft, etc, just to name a few, and depending on the subject matter" Brad.

 

Those thoughts work for me.

 

Szarkowski don't they make some sort of jewelry? Only kidding.

 

seamlessly persuasive. " Phil.

 

Again works for me. Might add another word "interesting" a pause for thought.

I want to keep looking at it, because I am trying to figure out what it says to me. Technical aspects are tools to this end, but there is no requirement for sharpness, bokey, or any other thing. Craft is necessary.

I suppose, bottom line, any image which makes me think 'I wish I'd taken that !'.

I second both Karim and Tony.

Resonance has nothing to do with what or how it was made but what it is.

Both Karsh and Ansel Adams have been criticized by the arty set, but both seem to me to score very high on the realization of their goals.

Their works do have that "gravitas" and they are very proficient, nothing to add.

As for goals, many achieved their goals and many became famous and their works became sought after their deaths.

Unobtrusiveness, ease, elegance and timelessness is what I appreciate (Rodney Smith, Mark Shaw, Horst P.Horst). Golden cut, calm color palette.

In PJ, - culmination of the action, movement phase and dramatism (Koudelka, Steve McCurry and others).

I love me a good technical photograph, but mostly it's how it makes me feel.

If its compelling. Content rules. Exposure, focus, things like that are just craft elements. Important. But without that special something, they won't make the picture.

One will know that when they see it.

The pictures I like most, tend to be those that I have no idea why I do. Something compositionally, that you can’t quite put your finger on. Not quite Cartier Bresson’s decisive moment, although, whilst that can be fantastic, it can also smack of hanging around waiting for the appropriate moment (nowt wrong with that I say). The serendipitous, that creates a compositional masterpiece, where the elements come together to give you something that might ordinarily, at first glance, seem every day or mediocre, but on a second look, where the photographer was either able to SEE that it was in fact something special, or, just got plain lucky. When you view these images, you ( or at least I) tend to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt, and prefer to assume that it was genius, when probably, most of the time it is chance. Either way, this to me, is photography.

I tend to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt, and prefer to assume that it was was genius, when probably, most of the time it is chance.

!!!

 

I think maybe genius and chance go together like ...