Jump to content

What makes a good photograph?


Recommended Posts

<p>Hi everyone...big question, I know!<br>

I'm asking because I'm an artist and writer who's been asked to write a piece on what makes a good photo. I thought it would be more interesting to get the views of other people via photography communities- so, my apologies if I'm posting in the wrong place or if this is off-topic!<br>

Anyway- <strong>what, in your your own opinion makes a good photo, one you are happy with, a successful photo?</strong><br>

For example...what response do you aim for in your audience, how important is equipment and skill over theme and subject etc. Any ideas or thoughts very gratefully received- and I'll post responses in the piece itself, which will be posted on Photoworks UK site later this month, with links to your if you supply one.<br>

Thanks in advance<br>

Erica</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>For me, a good photograph is one that pleases me, or if I'm selling it, one that pleases the person buying it. Quite frankly, I don't really care if someone else says "meh", it's not for them.<br /><br />Having said that, what pleases me is surprise. I shoot mainly film, so I rarely see the "results" until after I've left the scene. Below is one of my favorite photographs taken by me. I have no doubt that some will say "meh", some will hate it, and a few will say well done. But they don't have to tell me, and it's ok if they don't like it.</p>

<p> Stonehenge 7

<p>It doesn't hurt to have a great subject. But there have to be a billion pictures taken every year of Stonehenge. This one surprised me because I didn't notice the crows when I took it. This particular series was taken with my trusty Konica Autoreflex TC, 135/3.2 Hexanon, on my very last roll of APX 25.</p>

<p>One last note: I am a firm believer in the philosophy that if a picture doesn't "do it" for you, you weren't close enough. When taking pictures of any scene, I don't worry much about the big picture. I prefer to pick out details, and let the very (me, most of the time) put together the scene for themselves.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If only I'd knew.... I'd be a good photographer myself.<br>

It's hard to pin down, and it isn't one thing in specific that makes a photo good to me, or not. A landscape photo has different requirements than a street photo, and is served with a different look and treatment often, that would be detrimental for the other. A documentary photo is usually part of a series, a portrait more often stands on its own. So, it's hard to point at a specific technical or compositional aspect that makes the difference.<br>

For the photos I make myself, what makes me happy with one if it comes out the way I envisioned it - communicating the atmosphere I tried to capture, communicate the emotion that spawned it - so to a certain level, it has to feel personal and really mine. It sounds a like a bar set pretty low, but it's not often I'm really happy with what comes out. There is always something left that could have been done better. I call it successful if people feed back to me they are somehow moved by it, that it touched them; that certainly helps feel better about a photo, though I might still be unhappy about it myself.</p>

<p>In viewing photos of others, I care about the communication most. A lot of photos show beautiful scenes, objects, people, and that's it. They're an image of something, and do not go beyond that. That can be fine and even the aim, but they're not the photos that will stick with me, inspire me or wow me. Also technical competence (or excellence) is really just a very tiny part of it; composition and placement of elements much more. Seeing how light and shadow can play is to me a key quality; managing to translate that and use light clever makes all the difference. What I rate good photos are either narrative, more about a certain atmosphere than a object, ambiguous, inviting to let fantasy fill the gaps in the story, photos of the unremarkable and mundane, rather than the special and magnificent. Photos that aren't obvious or a statement ("showing a thing"), but those that require me to be an active part of the 'viewing experience', and that allow me sufficient room to project myself into that role.<br>

I'm quite sure my description is very vague, but as said, it's not that easy to pin down :-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For me it is simple, and much like the criteria of a good painting - communiucation.</p>

<p>A technically excellent painting, sculpture or photograph is nice, but what I think each of these needs to be to be elevated to good (I interpret you to mean this word as aesthetically accomplished, successful or excellent) is the quality of the approach and result by the artist photographer.</p>

<p>Does the photograph communicate something the viewer may not have expected or is charmed by the result - that is, an emotional and/or aesthetic statement that is unique or exceptional? The perception of a subject matter by the photographer that results in an image that is beyond what might be considered as a normal view of the subject matter, one that allows the artist and viewer to see the subject matter in two dimensions and in a new or different light, emotionally and aesthetically (symbolism, composition, light, the use of point,line and forms).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>> Anyway- what, in your your own opinion makes a good photo, one you are happy with, a successful

photo? For example...what response do you aim for in your audience...<P>

 

For me, a good photograph stimulates a viewer's imagination by withholding information and poses questions, rather than

supplying a complete set of answers - thus letting the viewer conjure a narrative. It makes little difference if

that narrative is accurate or what I had in mind when making the photograph. Withholding information can

occur through choices made at capture time, using shadow, light, composition, ambiguity, mystery, etc. <P>

 

>>> ... how important is equipment and skill over theme and subject etc. <P>

 

Equipment, again for me, is not very important (within bounds, of course) - for example, the photo below was made with my cell phone camera.. Making good photographs is about seeing and using one's

imagination contemplating what's in front of the lens, and then constructing a composition that stirs a viewers

mind.<P>

 

<center>

.<P>

<img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/PathMan.jpg"><P>

<i> Stanford, CA • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i><P>

.<P>

</center>

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><em>"what, in your your own opinion makes a good photo, one you are happy with, a successful photo?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>A very generic question that I suspect will result in generalized answers in broad strokes. </p>

<p>It's akin to asking what makes good music; a virtually impossible question to answer without narrowing to a specific genre that will invariably result in identifying attributes which are not shared by music from another genre. </p>

<p>For example, what makes a good landscape photo, a wedding photo, a street photo, an astrophoto, might share common attributes, but they will only account for a tiny fraction of their individual dissection of desirable characteristics. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A good photo is different from a photo I like.</p>

<p>Ansel Adams, IMO, makes good (even great) photos. I don't much like them.</p>

<p>Goodness to me is more objective than subjective. So a good photo has agreed-upon characteristics among overlapping groups of people. There's no science of goodness but neither do I think it's purely subjective.</p>

<p>Often, a good photo, IMO, will achieve its expression or purpose. But that doesn't mean I have to like, agree with, or think too much of the expression or purpose.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Semantics aside, a good/effective photograph to me is one that stimulates an emotional reaction in the viewer. It can be any emotion, but it causes a "ripple" in the emotional system of the viewer. Because we are all different, this can vary a lot from person to person. Some works of art and photographs trigger emotions in a wide range of people, or a large group of people, or sometimes just a small group of people (like art gallery curators, for example).</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I can't decide from hour to hour what makes a good photo. I like some in the morning, come back in the afternoon and wonder WTF? Like music - a tune will grab me sometimes and annoy me other times.<br /> In order for any photo to elicit a reaction from a viewer, it has to be noticed among all the images we are flooded with. That takes a hook of some sort. but cheap visual tricks don't have staying power. <br /> Some critics and/or coaches say that you have to have something to say, and know what it is before you start. I dunno. Brad prefers questions; is that different? I don't know, but I sure like his photos.<br /> Fred says there are good photos he doesn't like. That implies there is some standard by which they are good, doesn't it?<br /> I came to this thread hoping to sort out some of my confusion, and it's not working! Is this some sort of cruel joke just to confuse me? I don't know why --- there's no challenge in confusing me.<br /> I recently read a quote by a photography blogger (can't remember which one) of a musician who said roughly : <em>"there's a lot of ways to start making a song, from a rhythm, a guitar riff, bit of melody, lyric, etc. .. and it really doesn't matter much where you start."</em> Same goes for photos was the implication of the quoter.<br /> Maybe the question is a fool's errand like '<em>tree falling in deserted forest making any sound?' </em>that just doesn't matter.<br>

Then there are family photos that are records of people and occaisions that are meaningless to others, but are more important to some than any other photos in the world just because they exist as records. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've often come across high end commercial photographers showing landscape photos that are simply atrocious. Similarly, extremely competent landscape photographers will show photos revealing their ignorance in the rudiments of portrait lighting.</p>

<p>In music, everything is specialized and an expert domain in itself. A competent classical violinist will have little clue as to what makes a great jazz drummer. I suspect there is an equivalent in photography even if we can objectively get past our own biases and preferences.</p>

<p>There are simply too many variables to extract common attributes which will determine what constitutes "good". "Popular", perhaps, but "good" would be a stretch.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Fred says there are good photos he doesn't like. That implies there is some standard by which they are good, doesn't it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. It's not always the same standard(s). Those standards are often agreed upon by a group among whom the photo is or isn't considered good. One of Ansel Adams's standards for good, and a lot of people who follow and/or respect him, was tonal range. For Stieglitz later in his career and those who accompanied him past the earlier days of photography, the pictorial approach became seen as bad. For me, good and bad have little to do with the emotional or expressive aspects of the photo. I tend to use much different words to describe those sorts of things. As I said, I use good and bad for more objective aspects of the <em>craft</em>. When it comes to the <em>art and/or the aesthetics</em> of it, more poetic or metaphoric descriptions often seem in order to me and judgments like good or bad don't necessarily cut it.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Photos are experiences that are made by others for our consumption. But a photo owes me nothing, so if I'm not enjoying the experience of viewing it, should the negative attribution be directed toward some identifiable failing of the photo? or is it simply my inability to appreciate its attributes? </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe there are objectively good photographs at all. If you don't like Adams' photographs, Fred, they are not good.<br>Achieving a level of technical accomplishment (craft) may make a photograph a technically accomplished one. But unless that is all you are looking for (and too many people for my liking are. "Fine arts", celebrating technical accomplishment and no more, is not art. Aesthetics-by-number is not beauty.) there is no way you can call such a thing "good". It lacks in whatever else you hope to see, and that, simply, is not good.<br>I think you are deflating the word "good" and the word doesn't deserve that. It is a judgement, and you and your particular criteria decide what does or does not deserve to be called good. According to you. Not according to some group's technical-aesthetics-manifesto or rule book you can't accept as the begin all end all of what constitues a good photograph. That they too find things good, in their judgement, is perfectly fine. There is no law saying that the criteria have to be the same, that we have to like the same things for the same reasons. There is no problem burried in there, requiring a reduction of a word's meaning to what a particular manifesto says it means.<br>I'm curious: could you tell what words you use to describe a 'good' photograph that is also a good photograph, and why the word "good" can't do justice to what you think a poetically good photograph is? Why you think the word "good" isn't good enough for that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>If you don't like Adams' photographs, Fred, they are not good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G., You think I've reduced the word "good". I think you have. You have reduced "good" to "I like." I think "good" is more objective than the more subjective phrase "I like." I think it's important to have a more subjective phrase like "I like" to address taste and a more objective term like "good" to address quality.<br /> <br /> Merriam Webster's first three definitions of good:<br /> <br /> <em>of high quality; <br />of somewhat high but not excellent quality;<br />correct or proper</em><br /> <br /> Another definition offered is:</p>

<p><em>that can be relied on</em></p>

<p>This latter definition comes close to the sense I talked about in one of my above posts about fulfilling the intended purpose, which is a good thing but not necessarily a quality I will like. Riefenstahl's photos made good propaganda. Whether I like them or not is a different matter. Some will hate them precisely because they're such good vehicles of the ubermensch mindset.</p>

<p>_________________________________________________</p>

<p>Speaking of reduction, I have a hard time reducing my like for photos to a bunch of listed criteria here. Each time I try, I realize I've left something out. It more depends on the circumstances of the photo and the combination of the the content, form, and style. Sometimes I like photos that communicate. Sometimes I like photos that picture something significant without really "communicating" much at all. Sometimes it has a lot to do with what the photographer or photo is saying to me or doing and sometimes it has little to do with that and my like for a photo simply has to do with the subject matter presented (for example pictures of my grandmother). But, of course, subject matter is hardly a guiding principle for why I like a photo. The one thing I can hope for about my own sense of what I like is that it will keep changing. Except the pictures of Grandma. I hope I always like them.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Anyway- <strong>what, in your your own opinion makes a good photo, one you are happy with, a successful photo?</strong><br /> For example...what response do you aim for in your audience...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no audience, nor am I aiming my photos to one. A good photo is the one that satisfies me. I take photos like others talk to themselves or sing while taking a shower.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might as well ask what makes a good book. The elements that go into it--plot, characterization, descriptions, theme--can't determine whether it's "good" or "successful."  Those qualities are determined by the interaction between the author (photographer) and reader (viewer) each of whom brings his/her own experiences to the reading (viewing).<br /><br />That said, I have different standards for my own photographs from those of others. I view my pictures knowing what went into them, what I was trying for, what I wanted.  In that sense, "success" is how well I accomplished that to my satisfaction.  Sometimes I succeed, usually I don't, rarely I surpass them.<br /><br />Equipment enters into the equation only insofar as I get the picture I want.  In decades of exhibits, no one has ever asked what camera I used for any photo. The same with skill: the skill to take the picture that you want is what matters.<br /><br />As for my audience, I usually find that the pictures I like best are the ones viewers like. However, it's personal.  A photo, such as the one below, that I consider "good" and "successful" a friend considers "depressing." So, it depends. And thank goodness for that!<br /><br />  --Sally<div>00csyo-551774084.jpg.0d280c82fa2a0fd2ec12fd83c0b25a7f.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sally, interesting thoughts and picture. I think we often like depressing things. Think of all the tear-jerker movies people like (and that are also good—in that they're well made). And yet, some people would prefer not to be depressed by a movie or photo (which is their right), so while recognizing your photo is a very good one, they simply might not like it.</p>

<p>Speaking of which, Q.G., I'm thinking of all the times I've heard people say, "That was a bad movie but I liked it anyway." I go to bad movies and watch some pretty bad TV shows I wind up liking. Guilty pleasures!</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best definition of "good" (or rather: our best use of the word, as in "fit for its intended purpose" ;-) ) indeed goes along the lines of "fit for its purpose". Indeed fully in line with your "fullfilling the intended purpose", Fred.<br>Pretty obvious stuff, but i'm going to say it anyway: something can be good, and bad, according to what aspect of it you're adressing. A bad film can be not good because it is cheaply made, not adheres to cinematic convention of technical excellence, etc. and be good because it was an enjoyable pastime. There is no single criterium. That is where your reduction starts: the intended purpose is not one set in stone, or fixed in an unmutable universal nature of a thing. It is whatever we want it to be.<br>So/and even less than "there is no" is there an objective criterium. No absolute and/or definite good. A knife is supposed to be sharp, and taking that as an objective criterium you could say that a blunt knife is not a good knife. But what is sharp, when is it sharp enough, does it have to be as sharp as shapr can be? There is no absolute: a blunt knife can be sharp enough for what i need it for. A sharper knife isn't necessarily a more good, a better knife, nor does it reduce the good but blunt knife i have to less than good. "Its intended purpose", whatever that is.<br>A reduction of the word good to something in the vein of adhering to a definite and particular criterium is indeed a reduction. We do not need other words. "Good" is good enough, if you allow it to.<br><br>So when is a photograph good? Depends on what you expect it to be (or 'do').
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...