Why (when) is a photo "good"

[luis_g]

<p>Ton, *I* said that in reply to you. Note I used quotation marks properly to differentiate between what you said and what I said. The quote is:</p>

 

 

<p><strong>"Ton - "</strong>One could argue that on its most basic level analysis reverts to like/dislike. Personally I don't think that it is the negative it sometimes is made out to be."<--- <strong>End</strong> quotation mark<br>

<strong>My Reply</strong> ----> Like/dislike is not analysis. It is tastemongering. Someone who's never taken a photograph can do that. Is it negative? Only in the minds of people caught up in the good/bad dichotomy. It is very simplistic, and there's a lot more to it, of course.</p>

 

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>It is very simplistic, and there's a lot more to it, of course</p>

</blockquote>

<p>of course Luis but sometimes using a simplification helps in making a point.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Ton - "...</strong>sometimes using a simplification helps in making a point.<strong>"</strong></p>

<p> That's true. What point does like/dislike help to make when it comes to photographs? A quick, unfounded opinion?</p>

<p><strong><br /></strong></p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>now you're merely turning cynical. The point it I note a sentiment quite often that like/dislike is looked upon as not relevant or something easily dismissed while I think that most people for a large part judge a photo on that basis, at least for a major part and therefore it's as relevant as it is valid.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Like/dislike has a value, definitely</strong>!</p>

<p>We should not forget that photos appeal to our senses and emotions in first instance. For example: being pushed to open a thumbnail is a matter of curiosity, which is something in the like/dislike realm.</p>

<p>The real problem comes up when the personal like/dislike is not sufficient. In the end the like/dislike is not only subjective. It's marked by a lot of internal and external emotional, rational and experience features of our own.<br>

<strong>Luis</strong>: like/dislike might not be unfounded at all. It might be <em>very founded</em> if the viewer is <em>emotionally sensitive</em>, <em>conscious </em>about his <em>senses </em>and <em>experienced </em>in looking at photos.</p>

<p>PS: experience is intended in a broad sense: not only in the specific area of photography and imaging.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Luca</strong>, I agree that like/dislike has value. And I say this even though I would ask the same question as Luis about it being (or it seeming to be) a quick, unfounded opinion. Lately, I've noticed myself underplaying taste, perhaps more as a reaction to the devotion others seem to give it ("it's all subjective" kind of stuff). For me, curiosity may or may not begin in the like/dislike realm but usually goes beyond it. I'm as likely to be curious about photos I don't like, and open thumbnails I don't like, as I am about those I do. Therefore, it seems like something other than taste is motivating my curiosity.</p>

<p>I saw an incredible play on Broadway yesterday called "Fela", an African musical that made me wonder about a lot of things, especially the ease with which sexuality was incorporated into rhythms and dance. Though I liked and was fascinated by the entire thing, there was a bit of production right at the climax of the second act that I really disliked and I have found myself the most curious about that as a choice the director and designers made. If I had the opportunity, that would be the thing I would first ask them about. Though I disliked it, I think my curiosity is born out of wonder, not taste.</p>

<p>That having been said, there is something very elemental (not elementary) about taste. It does seem to come from the gut and be immediate (even though I know there may be traceable reasons for it and it can be honed, developed, and even learned). When people ask me why I don't like tomatoes (and they are usually horrified by that!), I can't give an answer, let alone a rational one. There's something very raw about that, and very compelling. So, I certainly wouldn't want to dismiss it.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>You can't account for taste.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Alan,<br>

it's not only taste.<br>

Don't forget that also taste benefits from experience and education.<br>

Who would eat snails right away? Education tells us that they could be nice food and experience confirms this.<br>

Taste is developed and educated.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Ton, Luca, Fred: I did not say that like/dislike was not valid -- or irrelevant. I did say it was taste-mongering, not analysis. I was not cynical in the slightest about asking: "What point does like/dislike help to make when it comes to photographs? A quick, unfounded opinion?"</p>

<p>Luca, in retrospect, I'll concede that, as you so carefully put it, "it might" have a foundation, although in my experience, when I ask someone in the US <em>why</em> they like/dislike a work of art, most often, it is: "I just do", a shrug, or something in their personal experience: "Looks like my hometown", "reminds me of my childhood", "that's my favorite color", "it's so pretty", "we vacationed there", "I had a boat like that", etc. Aesthetic concerns are seldom voiced. Taste may be influenced by experience and education, but if nothing else is said, how can we know that?</p>

<p> Imagine I look at one of your pictures, and say "I don't like it". What do you make of that? How useful is it to you (or the viewer, for that matter?). While better and far more valuable than silence, a yawn or belch, it's a meager human exchange. Just a few bits of information.</p>

<p>A lot of people feel they are doing something for the photographer by giving them a pat on the head. Lovely gesture, but...</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis, I understood that. I did not at all think you were being cynical. I thought we were exactly on the same page.</p>

<p>As for pats on the head, I'll take them (though I want and expect more from some). To me, a pat on the head means "I noticed." That's way cool (as my younger family members, in whose presence I've been for a week or so, would say).</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Thanks for clarifying, <strong>Fred. </strong>The pats, while well-meaning/loving, and instantly gratifying, can be a double-edged sword, unless the recipient keeps things in perspective. I know people who've taken the pats very seriously, mistaking them for informed commentary, resulting in a nonsensical reinforcement schedule that lead up to them asking me: "How come <em>everyone</em> says my work is great, but I'm hardly selling anything?".</p>

<p>Anyone in the creative field needs at least one straight-shooter in their inner circle. It's like the guy the Roman Emperors had standing behind them on triumphant parades to prevent death by hubris.</p>

<p> </p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>,<br>

good clarification. I get the relationship between "I like/dislike" and a simple pat on the head (shoulder).<br>

It's not a typical US attitude: in Latin countries I notice "mate-patting-on-the-head".<br>

The ancient Romans got it, but probably their culture was one of the more pragmatic, before the decline of the Roman empire, of course. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone in the creative field needs at least one straight-shooter in their inner circle.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perfect, that's what I would be looking for - seriously!<br>

I just have some difficulties to find one</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Luca: Actually we don't disagree. We're just coming at it from different angles. My quote "You can't account for taste" frankly was presented in the negative. Did you ever see a guy looking at his new girlfriend, you can see his heart pumping right through his shirt, his eyes are glazed over in love, and you see the ugliest girl you've seen since last winter? So you say to yourself under your breath, "You can't account for taste." Or words to that effect.<br />That's what I meant.</p>

<p> </p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Alan, ok.<br>

But each of us know "<em>when a girl is beautiful</em>" also quite independently from our personal tastes.<br>

So there must be a mixture of general and personal qualities we see in a photo.<br>

That was what the thread should have been about.<br>

Do we come to the conclusion that "all girls are beautiful"?</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>A photo is often good because it gives you a good kick in the balls. The same can't be said for girls.</p>

<p>Ugliness in a photo can be good. Not in girls, unless you're into that kind of thing of course.</p>

<p>Girls have breasts. Photos only have them sometimes.</p>

<p>Generally, I reckon they're two completely different things.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Luca, Well, my point was all girls are pretty to someone. But that doesn't mean that all girls are pretty to everyone. That's the only point I was making. Likewise a certain photo may be attractive to someone, if only to the person who took the photo or his mother. But I agree that, there are certain qualities in photos and women that are innately attractive to us. I recall a survey they did in all parts of the world and through different cultures. They found that certain qualities, such as ratio of waist to hips to breasts made woman who had the right dimensions attractive to all men regardless of where they were from.</p>

<p>Likewise I believe with photos. Who doesn't like a beautiful sunset? If you look at the sunset pictures posted at this site or others, they are posted by photographers in all parts of the world. Even "badly" composed sunset pictures look good if the colors are vibrantly red and orange. Surprise pictures or funny pictures of someone slipping let's say, we keep looking at like we would slow down at a car accident. The thing is that most people also instinctively know what looks good and bad. If you look at the contests you can often say that the top few were top because they deserved it. We could disagree who might be first second or third, but we would agree that those three were really good. And you don't have to be a teacher of photography to know that. </p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>Who doesn't like a beautiful sunset? If you look at the sunset pictures posted at this site or others, they are posted by photographers in all parts of the world. Even "badly" composed sunset pictures look good if the colors are vibrantly red and orange.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I dislike most sunset pictures. I can't for the moment think of one that I like.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I recall a survey they did in all parts of the world and through different cultures. They found that certain qualities, such as ratio of waist to hips to breasts made woman who had the right dimensions attractive to all men regardless of where they were from. Likewise I believe with photos</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It illustrates the fallacies of comparing photographs with beautiful women. We are hardwired genetically to go for attractive women, in order to promote reproduction and the propagation of the species. With a photo there is no reason why it should make us want to shag it, so there aren't the same 'rules' about what is good and what isn't. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691716/">Scientists have demonstrated</a> (incidentally, research carriedout by a friend of ours) that women with big breasts and narrow waists are more likely to be reproductive. So there are sound reasons for finding girls with big bazookas attractive. The same doesn't apply to photographs, and most of the 'rules' that people dream up for photos (rule of thirds etc.) are more or less nonsense, attempting to simplify or create order around something that shouldn't be simplified or ordered.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>It illustrates the fallacies of comparing photographs with beautiful women. We are hardwired genetically to go for attractive women, in order to promote reproduction and the propagation of the species. With a photo there is no reason why it should make us want to shag it, so there aren't the same 'rules' about what is good and what isn't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Simon: I think you're discounting DNA too much when it comes to pictures. I looked through you gallery and I really liked your pictures. But how can that be? You're from Scotland and I'm from The Bronx. You never played stickball and I never wore a kilt. <br>

Yet, your photo of the children touchiong the penguins through the glass delightfully surprised me as I'm sure it did you when you took it and smiled when you looked at the image you just created. Likewise the couple with the two light fixtures about equally offset from where they were standing. You liked those fixtures enough to include them equidistant in your picture. And I like them enough to comment that I liked it. Why were we attractive to the same image? We're 3000 miles apart. In thinking about it, the fixtures are a surprise, an offbeat counterpoint to flesh and blood people. It stops you to look at the whole picture. That's DNA. That's the women's figure all over again, just another part of the human DNA.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"We are hardwired genetically to go for attractive women"</em></p>

<p>Nope!</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I'm glad that you liked them, and willing to acknowledge that our reaction to people in photos may be connected with our hormones, or DNA, or whether they look scary or not (defensive instinct) etc. Especially, say, an erotic photo. But think that extending it to our reaction to lamposts is stretching it a bit! Scientists can just about prove that we reacts to breasts and bottoms because of our reproductive instinct, but extending that to explaining our visual reaction to a picture of a lamp is, I think, taking DNA theory a bit too far!</p>

<p>Maybe one day we'll be able to explain whether a photos good or not by referring to our DNA, but I think it's a loooooong way off!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There's some interesting work being done which suggests adaptive and reproductive evolutionary benefits to the fact that some men DON'T react to women's breasts and bottoms the way you guys do. If you're interested, read especially the latter few sections of the article:</p>

<p>http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Alan, Simon, Fred,</strong><br /> Metaphors are difficult, very difficult!<br /> The results of this posts are peculiar:</p>

<ol>

<li>most seem to know when a photo is good;</li>

<li>there is a general agreement on the difference between "I like" and "it's good" but both approaches seem to be heavily related;</li>

<li>each of us seems to agree that photos are made of innumerable elements (visual elements) and that not all (or only few) of these can be controlled;</li>

<li>Nobody could really say "why (when) a photo is good".</li>

</ol>

<p><strong>Alan</strong>,<br /> your <em><strong>photo</strong></em>-<em><strong>human being</strong></em> metaphor (I would not consider just women) works only as a representation of complexity. But human beings appeal to all senses.<br /> Photos do not, they are created for the <em><strong>sight</strong></em>.<br /> And I do not equal "<em><strong>good</strong></em>" to "<em><strong>pleasing</strong></em>": as Simon says, photos can be a kick in the balls, they can please.<br /> But they can also be <em><strong>boring</strong></em>.<br /> That's the reaction I have in front of the majority of pictures I see.<br /> <strong>Simon</strong>,<br /> try <a href="../photodb/member-photos?user_id=538298">these </a>photos. Maybe a bit repetitive, but you might find <strong><em>one </em></strong>you like!<br /> Or <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=554510">these </a>others.<br /> :-)</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p><strong>Simon</strong>, I like women but personally I find them attractive when they intrigue me, from every point of view. It could be the way they laugh, their intelligence combined with beautiful eyes and a nice butt, their hair, the sharpness or sensitivity of their thoughts, their smell... Or a combination of all these things. Definitely, I don't find them attractive for their "bazookas". Same with photos.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Komar and Melamid are relevant to the current discussion ...<br>

See <br>

<a href="http://awp.diaart.org/km/index.html">http://awp.diaart.org/km/index.html</a></p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Simon</strong>,<br /> try <a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/member-photos?user_id=538298">these </a>photos. Maybe a bit repetitive, but you might find <strong><em>one </em></strong>you like!<br /> Or <a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=554510">these </a>others.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those really made me feel queasy, definitely not my definition of good photography. I think the second one did have good photos tucked away in there, but I couldn't bear to look for long enough to find them. Apologies to the photographers, but it's not my thing.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The results of this posts are peculiar:</p>

<ol>

<li>most seem to know when a photo is good;</li>

<li>there is a general agreement on the difference between "I like" and "it's good" but both approaches seem to be heavily related;</li>

<li>each of us seems to agree that photos are made of innumerable elements (visual elements) and that not all (or only few) of these can be controlled;</li>

<li>Nobody could really say "why (when) a photo is good".</li>

</ol></blockquote>

<p>Which is why this kind of post, for me, is not useful, because it tells me nothing, while making me think that I have addressed the question. For me an image is good if (and I've probably forgotten something vital, but off the top of my head):</p>

<ul>

<li>it has some kind of meaning; this could be irony, a clever observation about humans and the way we live, a philosophical observation, a powerful emotion that is not trite and cliched, telling me something that I have never thought before.</li>

<li>it is original, it is showing me a visual message, feeling or effect that I have not encountered before.</li>

<li>it is visually powerful (and preferable in an original way, though that is not essential if the first couple of points are fulfilled);</li>

<li>it is honest - it tells me something about the photographer that is candid and/or heartfelt, preferably something that is not obvious - that I have not thought of before;</li>

<li>it looks at something that you walk past everyday in a new way;</li>

<li>does the photo have some historical or symbolic importance;</li>

<li>it impresses me in some other way, or appeals to me in an intuitive way that I can't quite put my finger on</li>

</ul>

<p>The last bullet point is the vaguest but also the most important. Because I shouldn't refer to a list of bullet points in working out whether I like something - ultimately my intuition is far more powerful than we think, we should try to tap into it and develop it and trust it.</p>

<p>Damn, now I tried to define what is good, which I didn't want to do!</p>