Jump to content

Why (when) is a photo "good"


Recommended Posts

<p><em><strong>Reflections from a (nearly) photo viewer burnout:</strong></em><br /><br />In the beginning I was thinking that there were criteria to determine whether a photo was "good" or "not good"<br /><br />[<em>My definition of good: a photo managing to pass a visual message to viewers (please note the plural), creating a sensorial or emotional impact.</em>]<br /><br />I was thinking that there were some grounds in aesthetics - a part of philosophy - applying the "<strong>golden ratio</strong>", taking care of proportions, carefully considering cuts, placing horizons and vertical alignments.<br /><br />Then I realised that rules could very well be <em><strong>broken</strong></em>: marvellous portraits by Almond Chu with the subject cut in half in the dead centre of the frame, beautiful photographs by Eggleston with cut off feet, telling tilted horizons by Winogrand.<br /><br />After that I read, in this and other photographic sites, absolutely enthusiastic comments on photos which I thought conveyed a very weak visual message.<br /><br />Moreover I am told that that in some cases photos are not junk, but rather '<em>the product of a beginning/blooming/budding artist who has yet to collect enough experience to output visions that others will regard as "art"</em>'. [Matt Ware , Aug 07, 2010; 07:53 p.m.]<br /><br />I saw photos which I think are junk in visual terms, say this, and angry authors reply that they did it on purpose. I still see very big limitations in visual craft, but what's the point insisting?<br /><br /><em><strong>Now my confidence is shaken</strong></em>. I realise that any single photo can be considered "good" or "bad" depending on the viewers "point of view". I have no terms of reference anymore.<br /><br />I have the feeling that I am in the <em><strong>realm of relativism</strong></em>: anything can be "good". What I consider "junk" is actually "good".<br /><br />I need ground again under my "<em>viewers feet</em>" again:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>why is a photo good, which elements make it good.</p>

</blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>Now my confidence is shaken</strong></em>. I realise that any single photo can be considered "good" or "bad" depending on the viewers "point of view". I have no terms of reference anymore.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hello Luca :) I think that's a good starting point. A certain amount of humility when assessing other people's photographs - try to delve down into why they took them. Maybe they saw something the viewer didn't, and maybe you have to look hard to see what was good. Maybe that is what is good about the photo - they saw it, and you the viewer didn't. Maybe it's good because it makes you think. If it was obvious why it was good, maybe it would be obvious and therefore not good.</p>

<p>If you can define in advance what is good, then something that is new and different and doesn't conform to your definition is automatically bad. Defining 'good' kills originality, unless you simply define 'good' in very vague terms as something that you like, something that is innovative, something that is powerful. Maybe it doesn't need to be powerful if it's innovative. Or maybe it doesn't need to be that innovative if it's powerful. And so on.</p>

<p>When I first read The Wasteland, I couldn't understand it at all, I assumed it was the poem that was failing to communicate, rather than me failing to understand. Later (thanks to being forced to persevere by a looming exam and an excellent teacher) I realised it was my fault, the poem was brilliant and it was my lack of patience and understanding that was the problem.</p>

<p>If you've persevered with a picture, you think that you've understood it, and you still don't like it, then fair enough. Don't bother to put it on your 'likes' list.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was thinking that there were some grounds in aesthetics - a part of philosophy - applying the "<strong>golden ratio</strong>", taking care of proportions, carefully considering cuts, placing horizons and vertical alignments.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Personally, I dislike any analysis of imagery based around the 'golden ratio', or an analysis of lines. It's strikes me as meaningless, they are just a way to stopping beginners from always sticking the subject in the centre of the frame, and to look around carefully and analyse at the elements of the image. Lines are of course important in an image, and sometimes it can help to have them zinging in or out of the image in a particular way (in the same way that it can be useful to use the colour blue in an image, or can be interesting to include a chicken), but analysing them is just a distraction from the image itself. And I have a personal hatred of the 'rule of thirds'. But that's just me.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Phylo, sounds too much like God. He spake and IT WAS GOOD.</p>

<p>Not buyin' it. ;)))</p>

<p>Nothingness, (the not) can be good. No? Think of all the potential!</p>

<p>If I say that a photo that IS is what a good photo is, that would encourage too many more bad photos, and there are enough already.</p>

<p>But, you did better than me because I don't have an answer. For me, it's one of those questions like "How do we know we're not dreaming?" or "If a tree falls in the forest . . . " It's a Yadda Yadda thing.</p>

<p>The closest I can come is to say that a good photo approaches some sort of internal (and maybe with some external thrown in) coherence of elements. (Too many elements to name, but among them are composition, technique, intent, voice, style, lighting, presentation, and on and on.)</p>

<p>Generally, laziness and lack of responsibility are not good. Sometimes, I can see those in a photo and then I say "It ain't so good."</p>

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

<p>I highly recommend Terry Barrett's <em>Criticizing Photographs - An Introduction to Understanding Images</em>. His viewpoint is that photo criticism is not stating whether or not you like a photograph, but being able to accurately describe what you see, interpreting, understanding its context, and then evaluating its success.</p>

<p>With practice, the "all hat and no horse" cowboys will become apparent.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I dislike any analysis of imagery based around the 'golden ratio', or an analysis of lines. It's strikes me as meaningless, they are just a way to stopping beginners from always sticking the subject in the centre of the frame, and to look around carefully and analyse at the elements of the image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not about an <em><strong>analysis</strong></em>. I think photos <em><strong>should not to be analysed</strong></em>. I agree that the general rules help beginners, but a photo can't be good because the subject is not in the dead centre, the lines are "right" and no limbs cut off.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Defining 'good' kills originality</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely agree. The issue is: can we assume that all the visual effects of a photo are the result of a conscious choice? Can we infer the photographer's skills, education and background looking at a photo?</p>

<p>What is then all our high-eyebrowed photocritiquing about?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Fred</strong>,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But, you did better than me because I don't have an answer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me, that's an excellent piece of information.<br>

But that's not entirely true, because I know that you know when a photo is good.</p>

<p>And in fact, saying</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The closest I can come is to say that a good photo approaches some sort of internal (and maybe with some external thrown in) coherence of elements. (Too many elements to name, but among them are composition, technique, intent, voice, style, lighting, presentation, and on and on.)<br>

Generally, laziness and lack of responsibility are not good. Sometimes, I can see those in a photo and then I say "It ain't so good."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you don't disappoint me and you do provide an answer.</p>

<p>There is one outstanding element which I feel should be highlighted among the others, which is novelty: viewing something which we have not seen, and maybe which we will not see (anymore).</p>

<p>But there still is an issue about <em>individuality </em>versus <em>collectivity</em>:<br>

Is a photo good because it appeals to the individual senses, to the individual perception, to the individual emotions, through the "<em>multiplicity of elements</em>" you are mentioning? Or is there something related to collectivity?</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Matt</strong>,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's a form of communication. Have you communicated something? Have you communicated what you <em>wanted</em> to communicate? Good!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Communicated to whom: to myself? to my family? my audience? my photo club? photo.net? the world?<br>

But I believe it's an excellent question to pose, first of all when looking at one's freshly printed photos.<br>

We photographic craftsmen should be our first and strictest critic.</p>

<p>To avoid boring others with the imperfect outputs of our craft. :-)))</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Howard</strong>,</p>

<p>agree, but for whom? Who should be stopped?</p>

<p>This is my main criterion: if I would enter a room and the photo was hanging on a white wall before me, would I stop and step over and look at it again and again?</p>

<p>But this relates to <em>individuality</em>.</p>

<p>When is a photo "good" <em>universally</em>? :-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>What is "good" is never static and absolute. It is a long and very selective process where most of what we do will be put aside and maybe, maybe a few photographers around here on PN and a very few of their photos will be considered as "good". This is what happens if Photography is considered together with other expression of art. Some of those photos end up in museums and art collection to show to others what "good" photography was in the beginning of the Millennium.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, what is "good" all depends on answering the questions: good for whom and for what? Most photos here on PN are "good" for at least the photographer that shot them. Why else would he/she upload them? They might even be good for love-ones. Whether they are "good" for others, all depends. One why of telling what is "good" in these terms is to go to the very democratic rating system - despite the many critical comments on the tool. You see the result in the top-rated photos forum. For each of us, it is surely not very convincing as a criteria for what is "good" but as a democratic answer to your question, it has it's value.</p>

<p>Whether it is possible to approach the question: What is good? by analysis of photos, I'm personally not convinced, as some above, that the answer is obviously NO ! For me, an extreme anti-analytical attitude to photos that goes beyond the personal experiences of the photographer is mostly a lazy excuse of not making the effort of studying the question (reading, visiting museums, art galleries etc). I do believe in the role of lines, of harmony/disharmony, the rule of thirds (respect of, and violation) etc etc. "Good" photography can be "good" because of respect of disrespect of such rules but it does not mean that rules do not play a role at all. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A good photograph is a photograph that <em>burns</em> -- where my experience of it consumes the substance of it. A better photograph is one that burns more completely. The best is one that is entirely consumed by my experience of it.</p>

<p>You can make a good campfire by following the golden rules -- putting your logs just so and your kindling just thus and your dry fluff just there -- or you can have a bolt of ligntning at 30,000 amps, 130,000 mph 54,000 degree F take care of things. Or there's an acid burn, or a digestive burn and so forth. To live is to consume is to burn.</p>

<p>Note that what I think is good is not entirely coexistent with what I like. For example, there are some types of music that I don't like, but which I still know to be often very good. For me, to the extent that a picture disappears into my experience of it, it's good. I may like some pictures that barely burn at all, but I don't think such pictures are (very) good. I may hate some pictures that burn too hot and bright for me to bear but I will know that they are good.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Luca--</p>

<p>Like is individual. Good is collective.</p>

<p>I've seen novel photos that are bad. The novelty still has to cohere, I think.</p>

<p>And I've seen really good imitations.</p>

<p>There's a matter of aspect and context to goodness as well. That's why God's "and it was good" was never persuasive to me.</p>

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

<blockquote>

<p>Being "good" or "not good" is mediated by the viewer. Are these categories a "democratic issue": the more viewers are struck positively, the more founded the aesthetic statement of a photo? - Luca</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's the aesthetic statement of a photo and there's the photographer's statement of a photo. When the two allign the photograph may reveal <em>intention</em>. Meatyard's out of focus work had such an intention. They're not "not good" because they're out of focus, no, they're rather "good" because of their intention. Lee Friedlander's witty and at that time <em>not done</em> compositional play with photography's language had intention.<br /> I agree with Fred's mentioning of context. Arguably, the best of works transcend context.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nothingness, (the not) can be good. No? Think of all the potential! - Fred</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, potential <> intention</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> I see I'm late to this party...a few comments...</p>

<p> Novelty is what is new to <em>you. </em>Things entering the horizons of your experience and knowledge.</p>

<p>Something truly new to the medium and the ability to detect it means that viewer is a connoisseur. Historically, these things have a very uniform record of being initially despised, almost universally, and eventually, as they become understood, their genius is appreciated.</p>

<p> <strong>Julie - "</strong>Note that what I think is good is not entirely coexistent with what I like. For example, there are some types of music that I don't like, but which I still know to be often very good.</p>

<p> This is the difference between tastemongering and understanding. In F. Scott's Fitzgerald's opinion and mine, a sign of intelligence, too.</p>

<p> Context matters. When I'm looking at a family album the context is very different than being in a gallery, gloved, and looking at prints, reviewing photographs taken by grade-schoolers, looking at a printed photograph of how a fishing fly is tied, a passport photo, or a photo in the NYT.</p>

<p> <more later...></p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Phylo - "</strong>There's the aesthetic statement of a photo and there's the photographer's statement of a photo. When the two allign the photograph may reveal <em>intention</em>. Meatyard's out of focus work had such an intention."</p>

<p> I agree that it did, but Meatyard didn't say much in the way of statements about his photographs.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>But the <em>photographer's statement of a photo</em> needs not be expressed verbally, it is the photo, the intention behind it, as seperate from the aesthetic statement of a photo, even so it may be expressed through that.<br>

For example, a random security camera still can have an aesthetic statement but it lacks a photographer's statement.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Though intention is significant, some aspects of every one of my photos are more intentional than others. Accidents also happen. I take responsibility for my accidents and am proud of many of them (please no comments about the evils of pride . . . I can live with my pride . . . a happy sinner), but they weren't intentional. I hesitate to read intention into all goodness. Sometimes I start out with one intention and something else good happens instead, I would say even despite my intentions. Such unintended elements are still made in my voice ("photographic statement"). Some goodness just IS . . . though as stated before by this heathen . . . not all that IS is good.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Different images and different intentions need different evauations. Few will want to evaluate what is a good New Orleans jazz concert in the same way that someone will evaluate what is a good performance of a late Beethoven quartet or a successful rap concert. They are all music and share some similarities of form, but they are too different to evaluate with the same criteria. The same is true of painted Icons, abstract art and installation art. They are all art and often use the same media.</p>

<p>Photographic images have widely different subjects and photographer intent. There are common aesthetic structures we consider when evaluating each, but it's what the photograph communicates to an individual or to a group of individuals (collectivity) and how it affects them that is ultimately the most important. However, the good photograph will always be good for only a limited number of persons (which can be just one to many millions, and the latter does not encompass the majority of persons who will have seen the image). I don't care to have a painting of a buffalo herd kicking up dust as they rumble across a romantic plain of Western Canada, but many others would be delighted to have it over their living room couch. Good is most subjective and its criteria by the world's collectivity are as variable as are the differing types of photographs and their differing subjects.</p>

<p>Photo club judges and their members bring a certain subjectivity to what they consider as good. It is often quite different from those evaluations of the public who visit the yearly or half yearly exhibitions in the shopping centre, or wherever the photos may be hung. Ratings on Photo.Net are not always similar to those that would be made by the public, as, like the camera club salons, they are made by photographers, with our photographic biases and aesthetics, and not by the uninvolved viewer. Some of the criteria or the weighting of those criteria versus others, will be similar, others will not. "Good" does not appear to me to be a parameter with a fixed value or specification, which certainly varies amongst viewers. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arthur, Julie brought up the distinction between "I like" and "is good." "I don't care to have" suggests more to me about taste than about what's good. You say "Good is most subjective" but I think taste is most subjective, what's good much less so.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong>Photo club judges and their members bring a certain subjectivity to what they consider as good. It is often quite different from those evaluations of the public who visit the yearly or half yearly exhibitions in the shopping centre, or wherever the photos may be hung."</p>

<p> Having judged and juried several times, including some international (web) exhibits, but no photo clubs, I can tell you it is a thankless and difficult job. No matter how one does it, plenty of people will feel wronged, and think you an effete d**k***d for your choices. You keep reminding yourself that the people who asked you to do this <em>did not want to do it themselves.</em>:-)</p>

<p> Even worse in terms of responsibility is editing a really extraordinary photographer's work for publication/exhibition. Culling out pictures that you know a large majority of photographers would kill to produce once in a lifetime, and in most cases having to justify decisions to the photographer that made them.</p>

<p> </p>

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...