Why (when) is a photo "good"

aplumpton · August 9, 2010

Fred,

Your interpretation of my comments are I think a good example of how we are subjective. You have an ability to see what I am getting at in your own personal way, which is often quite different. I have no trouble with that, of course, but it does often make it necessary to come back and reformulate, such that the meaning is conveyed. My comments are subjective, just as yours are subjective. The notion of "good", to you, or to me, is subjective. I smile when I see the word 'objective" used by some posters, as the requirement of objectivity is no mean condition to achieve.

Luis, I have judged only a few photo competitions, but did not do that with light heart. It is very difficult to avoid one's biases, to see really what the other is communicating and (worse) to be consistent in judging. We tried various systems of judging at my own club in the 90s (a 50 year old society and one of more than 40 in Quebec province, and the one that continuously obtained the top prizes in the provincial competition and had its work exhibited internationally) and finally chose one involving 3 judges, various criteria and an absence of identification of the author's of each of the prints (about 250 to 300 each time, which required up to 3 hours of judging), as well as a system that rejected the wilder responses and biases (the invited judges each 6 month salon were professionals, but were not without their particular biases and some with very discernible biases didn't get invited back of course). I worked for a Canadian photo monthly for about 5 years in the 90s and agree entirely about the difficulty and pitfalls of choosing photos from a photographer's submissions. Not something I had to do, as I was fortunate asked only to write columns on darkroom technique ("Light in the Dark") and also on image composition ("Frameworks").

Norma Desmond · August 9, 2010

Arthur, I didn't mean to just interpret (or misinterpret) your comments. I meant to have a dialogue. That sometimes starts off by my telling you my understanding of what you said and then questioning you about it or adding something of my own to it. I suppose, though, if everything is subjective that will be difficult to accomplish. ;)))

Norma Desmond · August 9, 2010

Arthur, in some cases I have challenged your ideas, not because I don't think you're allowed to have them and not because I don't think it's fine for us to vary on many matters, but because others challenging me and my challenging others (in a reasonable manner) is often how I learn. We may eventually agree to disagree but I can't see that being a productive starting point. It would feel too passive to me. Let's dissect each other's thoughts a little first and then allow what are differences to flourish. I want to accept what you have to offer with sufficient understanding and reason, not on blind faith.

aplumpton · August 9, 2010

Fred, on the contrary, I think that two persons each arguing subjectively bring the benefit of differing viewpoints andexperience to the table, and, because both recognize a number of "benchmarks" (such as some so-called "givens" in phoography, similar prior readings, similar experiences, etc.), the discussion is adequately oriented and valuable.

aplumpton · August 9, 2010

Fred,

In perfect agreement with your second post (2:29 PM). Thanks.

je ne regrette rien · August 9, 2010

Interim post. I have a very clear perception of the distinction between "I like" and "good". This is the reason why I never used "I like". However, judgement (because it's judgement we talk about) in photography seems to be always intertwined with subjectivity. A mixture of subjectivity and objectivity. I believe there is at least some objectivity in image judgement. But there are at least two elements which determine judgement:

<ol>

<li>the personal preferences in matters of photography (Arthur's example of the buffalo herd), and</li>

<li>experience.</li>

</ol>

I would add also the capability of recombining preferences and experience to appreciate something completely new. I will also think better about Julie's burning pictures. But to do this, I need to discover some new ones. :-)

sjmurray · August 9, 2010

Like Julie's "burning" I want to feel some "energy" from a photo, no matter what type or genre of photo it is.

matthew_tyler · August 9, 2010

I would like to think that the term "Junk" is slang terminology describing a style of response which renders little or no respect. Intention- which renders little respect; may still be art.

I would like to think of the term "Good" (the opposite of Junk), would offer more than "little or no respect."

It is our collective nature to associate art with "good", as we can still have respect for something "of which we have no taste."

It is our nature to associate "junk" with items that we feel may not warrant the respect of "being considered art."

So, why is a photo "good", in my opinion? Because it renders respect in some way. Which elements make it good, perhaps, is really asking - What do we respect?

je ne regrette rien · August 10, 2010

It is striking that actually nobody has a clear answer.

However the photos are judged every time. Each of us expresses judgements every time, here and in other places.

On the other hand it's not acceptable that aesthetic judgements on photos are relegated to the strictly subjective ambit.

Matthew's post mentions the respect for something "for which we have no taste".

<ul>

<li>Because we are inexperienced</li>

<li>Because we are uneducated</li>

<li>Because we lack "recombination capabilities"</li>

<li>Because we lack "visual innovation".</li>

</ul>

That's right. But the real danger is opening up to the conclusion that "everything is good" because it has "its own dignity" and "has to be respected".

Provided that human beings have always to be respected, this does not mean that all of their works are good.

To me it's not acceptable. Starting with my own photos.

pnital · August 10, 2010

I rarely participate in this form ( language... Language... ) But I could not help myself as I see it as a million $ question.... There are so many possibilities and correlation to judge a photo. It depends on who is the judge, his education, his knowledge of the medium's technic, his experiences. Is he a layman or a professional? amateur ? ( what is needed to be a professional? ) Does he saw a lot of photo and developed a deeper understanding? I don't see numbers as a modeI , I do see a series of works in the long time duration , if it has consistency, development,understanding of the elements composing a photo.Understanding the light factor, some new way of expression, and a lot more. There are laws, they can be broken?is it working?there are as well a personal feelings and attractions as in many other fields of life......A million $ question imo.... no real definite one answer.

Julie H · August 10, 2010

[Nodding in agreement at Pnina's post before mine.]

Luca,

Even if we could/do discover and agree on "why is a photo good, which elements make it good" that will not help us to agree on why this or that specific photograph is good -- which is, after all, what it will need to do.

If I ask "why or which elements make Luca good"? The question could only be answered if and to the extent that I do and can know Luca. It depends only partially on what is meant by "good." This does not mean that we can't agree on what good does/should/might mean. It does mean that knowing Luca is ... complicated.

Which leads me to my point (I have a point!). In this forum (and in philosophy in general) what is (often, always?) striven for is "getting to know" rather than defining. We get to know Luca, we don't define him. We get to know "good", we don't conclusively define it. We get to know (okay, we fight about) almost anything. We hold it up to the light; we turn it around, we pick it apart, we try it in different settings, combinations; we study it. We don't claim to -- and I don't think we aim to -- find "clear answers."

steve m smith · August 10, 2010

Good or bad is irrelevant. You either like it or you don't.

It's also a mistake to say that something is good just because you like it or bad just because you don't like it. It's possible to dislike a 'good' picture and like a 'bad' picture... It's the same with music.

cooltpmd · August 10, 2010

Luca, I don't believe in the Relativism of art ... I do believe in the Relativism of the market.

I believe that certain people are given a huge head start in the acceptance of their work as "art". We have an "intelligentsia" that allows certain regions, certain groups, and certain persons to carry a gravitas before actually doing anything. The aesthetics of ART allow for a subjective assessment that varies from person to person. BUT, I think it is the "business" of art that causes the wide variations in assessment.

I accept that you and I may diverge to some extent on what we visually desire. I do not accept that there is any unique set of skills required to assess aesthetics. We have people who will try to make you feel inferior, because you fail to recognize an aesthetic. In some ways it is akin to the peer pressure that allows the "Emperor to not wear clothes".

In the end, produce work that appeals and pleases you. For most, this is the harshest critic they will face. The rest you cannot control.

Norma Desmond · August 10, 2010

A yes to what Julie and Pnina have said. Especially about definitions of things like "good", "truth", "love", "beauty", and "art".

I've talked recently about theory vs. practice and abstract vs. specific thinking. When you ask what's "good" there will be less clear answers and less common ground than were you to show a particular photo and ask us each to critique it. Ask us to look at it and talk about it, not whether it's good or not. Not to interpret it. Not to say how we feel about it. A serious critique will offer observations and, perhaps, suggestions and reasons for those suggestions. (I tend to prefer to call attention to things and let the photographer address it and seek solutions if s/he feels it's warranted.) It would be especially helpful to ask us each to critique a photo that we didn't like. The exercise could be to try to make it a good photo (or a better) but one we still didn't like. Then we could separate our taste from our assessment/judgment.

If someone appears to be striving to create an Ansel-Adams-like landscape and they are blowing highlights and blocking up shadows, I may talk about exposure and detail. If I see a more stark and high contrast, almost Japanese approach, or a more contemporary grunge approach, blown highlights will be much more in tune with the whole. I may not "like" them any more than I do in the Adams-like scene, but I will think they are good within the context of the particular photo. That's the internal coherence I talked about. A tree limb in the foreground of a photo is neither good nor bad. A tree limb in the foreground of THIS photo or THAT photo may be good or bad depending on what purpose or function it serves. Likewise with a shallow DOF. Many people think of that as an arty look and assume it is good. But it all depends on how it's used and when and where it's used. Same for sharpness. Sometimes it's good, sometimes not. But none of these are "inherently" good.

je ne regrette rien · August 10, 2010

Julie,

I like your metaphor and I absolutely agree.

But a question comes to my mind: a huge part of activity here on photo.net, but also on other photographic sites is about judging, critiquing and rating.

Does it mean that everything is possible, as well as the contrary of everything?

And furthermore, does it mean that in the end, according to the transitive property, any judgement can be considered trash? :-)

What are we then talking about when we critique photos?

This thread is indeed enlightening.

je ne regrette rien · August 10, 2010

Fred,

yes, agree.

I tend to act like this. Normally I have not much to say on photos I consider "good" (I like is something different). They are good. Period.

Photos which I do not consider "good" (independently from me liking them or not) I do analyse, providing some indications on the features which strike me negatively.

Still, aesthetic judgements seem to be closely related to "gut feelings".

The visual message is a sensorial one.

And we get back to what I said before:

<ul>

<li>judging a photo is something related to experience, education, recombination capabilities. And to personal sensitivity.</li>

</ul>

dan_south · August 10, 2010

Can we accept that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Most people would place more value on a technically awful

photo of their child or pet than some highly crafted photo of something or someone that they don't know. And that not

quite horrible beach photo that they took on their honeymoon means more to them than any Ansel Adams print ever will.

Emotional attachment to the subject is a big factor.

luis_g · August 10, 2010

Luca - "What is then all our high-eyebrowed photocritiquing about?"

It isn't about any one thing. It varies, depending on who is doing the critiquing, and on their approach. Some people are far better at critiquing than others, some tell you much more about themselves & their likes than about the work in question, and on top of that one has the 10K hrs effect in criticism as well. All critics are not created equal, either.

What would be the purpose of assembling a list of qualities or metrics for a "good" photograph? So we can put together yet another checklist? It seems like Luca is wanting signifiers that would I.D. a good photo.

Immediately, hordes of PN snappers would be like a hail of fleas trying to jump on that dog. :-)

Some years ago, some enterprising programmers wrote software that one can upload their photographs into, and the program will rate it as it would be on the average, in Flickr. Many of my friends had fun running photography's masterpieces through it, many of which scored very low. They're working on a version that can be in camera, so as you point the lens around, you're getting a probable Flickr rating, so the 'photographer' will know what is "good" before taking the picture.

aplumpton · August 10, 2010

The recent posts are helpful, including Luca's questioning of objectivity. Getting to know someone or his work was introduced by Julie, and this my be a valid process or an alternative in a personal assessment of what is good photography or good art. Pnina reminds us that the judge or viewer brings his own state of learning and experience to that task, and it may or may not always be sufficient to accomplish the task of evaluation. Steve reminds us of the role of the milieu (intelligentsia, marketers, critics,...) in establishing what may be considered as good.

My experience is limited, but my feeling about the great subjectivity of the evaluation is tempered by what I see as the "objectivity" (or perhaps "collective point of view") of some serious photo salons that are organised by the more experienced photographic societies. The particular society (a long established "camera club" by a different title) I contributed work to on a regular basis used a system of pre-numbering prints (eliminating the photographer's name) and presenting them in random order to a panel of three professional photographers (chosen at each salon from a much larger group of those willing to judge from time to time). Each image within its group (landscape, human, etc.) is initially shown fairly rapidly on a lit easel and then the prints are re-shown with sufficient time (but limited to a minute or so) for each judge to record his score (based on several criteria). Following computation, the 8 to 15 highest rated (combination of individual judge ratings but occasionally excluding a far off rating which can be mathematically detected) prints are then presented together (although not in the order of initially attributed points) on a stand and the judges then choose their choice of 1st, 2nd, 3rd best prints, requiring about 15 to 20 minutes of discussion amongst the judges (not communicated to the audience). One week following the closing of the two week exhibition of all accepted prints (about 80 to 90% being normally acceptable), one of the judges returns for an evening meeting in which members can present a few of their prints (prize winners or not) for one judge's perception of their qualities and why he or she considers the better prints as good, or the less good prints as perhaps improvable in their message or technical quality.

Does that sort of judging allow a more objective evaluation of good? It has the advantage of applying accepted criteria of the society to the evaluation and the advantage of anonymity and three opinions during the evaluation. Of course, this is only a question of the "mechanics" of evaluating what is good. What is actually good is a much more complex question, as has been already pointed out by other contributors.

This is how a well established small photographic society or club presents and evaluates prints of its members. It would be interesting to know how some much larger societies (e,g., Royal Photographic Society of Britain, or some major US museums, Smithsonian, etc.) evaluate the work of their members or invited participants. Do they attain any measure of agreement, of objectivity, that is different?

Perhaps a case in point about the perception of what is good. Some unique images cannot be evaluated so easily, as they surprise by their unexpected qualities and may not easily fit some prior criteria. It required some 15 or so years for the relativity theory of Einstein to be appreciated for its worth, including many attempts to show that it was bad rather than good. This may not be an appropriate analogy to the case of the surprising image, but sometimes we must judge something that doesn't fit our established notions of what is good, whether those criteria be subjective or "objective".

je ne regrette rien · August 10, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1787762">Steve Smith</a> , Aug 10, 2010; 06:33 a.m.

Good or bad is irrelevant. You either like it or you don't. It's also a mistake to say that something is good just because you like it or bad just because you don't like it. It's possible to dislike a 'good' picture and like a 'bad' picture... It's the same with music.

</blockquote>

It is not irrelevant. A large part of photo.net and other similar sites is about judgement: people are normally titillated by praising judgements and get angry because of critical judgements. As happened <a href="../photo/11207096">here</a>.

So good or bad is very relevant in this world.

There are people who seem to own "the truth" on photography. Where from?

Since you mention music, think of Stockhausen. Much, much more complex than Mozart or Bach. The fact that I might not understand it, does it make it less "good"?

je ne regrette rien · August 10, 2010

<blockquote><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570">Luis G</a> Aug 10, 2010; 10:37 a.m.It seems like Luca is wanting signifiers that would I.D. a good photo.</blockquote>

:-)))

Luis, my confidence is shaken. :-)))

What I want? Don't you think I have some ideas of my own?

AJHingel · August 10, 2010

Luckily, Luca, nobody owns the truth on photography but some have power to decide. In PN the ratings system is indeed such a system, which on the basis of member's subjective understanding of a few criteria, rates photos that then, in case, end up on the top rated photos list. These photos are the show cases of PN to present how good PN and its photographers are.

Good photos are "good" within a context and never in objective terms. The result is of course that if we as photographers want to play the game we have to be good within that context or skip participating in the game.

Most of us have examples of photos that we personally like and consider good but which we now would be doomed if they were introduced in a competition. They will for sure received their 3/3s - or equivalent. Some of my own photos that I consider my best and really, really good are of that category. Others, that I like less are sometimes liked by others.

I find the whole discussion on "good", "bad", "like", "don't like" fairly limited and threatens to lead us nowhere - apart from towards the often mentioned declaration that all that is subjective and that my own feelings about a picture is what counts. I think we can do better than that.

One could refer back to situations in the history of art where "good" and "bad art" were confronted. For example, the history of schools of art with the confrontations between first Academic art and Realism and then Impressionism, Cubism, Fauvism ...... Expressionism all criticized and rejected by some with arguments about "good" and bad art. Art that have been rejected as "ugly" or bad became beautiful and good some years later. Analyzing and "judging" art, here photos, is the act of identifying photos that announce something new or are in line with what presently are considered "good" by the marked, by collectors, by colleagues and trusted friends. Our guts feelings do not reach far in that respect unless we are satisfied with photography as a private sphere pass time only.

luis_g · August 10, 2010

Of course I think you have plenty of ideas of your own, Luca, and I meant you want signifiers from us about what makes a picture good. I did not mean that you wanted signifiers for yourself to adopt. Also please note that I didn't include you in the "hordes of PN snappers".

Julie H · August 10, 2010

Fred,

I am intriqued by your suggestion, "It would be especially helpful to ask us each to critique a photo that we didn't like. The exercise could be to try to make it a good photo (or a better) but one we still didn't like. Then we could separate our taste from our assessment/judgment."

Therefore, I have dug back through my old, old, old view camera "straight" photos for a picture that (1) I think is "good," but which (2) I don't like. I hope you too find it to be a good photo and/but you too don't like it ... so you can try your exercise on it. [Note: I really, truly don't like this picture. Feel free to do with it what you will.]

Norma Desmond · August 10, 2010

Julie, I'm leaving in 2 minutes for a two-day trip to Lake Tahoe. I probably won't have Internet access. So I'll be curious to see if others come up with approaches to critiquing this and, if it's still live when I return late Thursday night, I'll take it on.

Sign In

Why (when) is a photo "good"

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in