Why (when) is a photo "good"

aplumpton · August 11, 2010

Anders,

First, a not so small "mea culpa" for commenting your photo by (confusedly) looking at the upside down reproduction of it that Julie posted. It changes things a bit for me (as a viewer) to see your original, in that the abstract is less abstract and the architecture discernible. I am sorry I misread it initially, although I did read and understand your well thought out text. A little more on that point in the third paragraph, below.

When I mentioned that the image does little for me, I was not responding uniquely from a compositional or aesthetic viewpoint, which does leave me cold, but from a viewpoint of trying to perceive something that communicated something else to me (emotion, delight, repugnance, fantasy, symbolism, etc., etc.). I could not respond to any of those or any other feelings, although I tried to understand the image. Although I found it intriguing, it did not beckon me to further understand it. However, when you subsequently mentioned that it is a part of the ceiling of the German government assembly I can understand (perhaps) your connection with the architecture and place. It is no doubt symbolic of the State and the modern Germany and has reflected thesounds of many discussions and debates within it. Like Simon says, we need to live with an image for some time to fully explore all its meaning. That may well be the case here. Some of the paintings I love most are those on my walls that are abstract and more difficult to appreciate at one go, or those with a mystery or complexity (darkness, multiple facets, or visual incongruities despite an overall simple form) that make my return to them a frequent activity. If I was to place an interesting architectural shot of the new AGO in Toronto, or Lepage's transformed fire engine house-studio for Ex Machina in Quebec, I may well have considerable difficulty in transmitting the non-visual currents in the image to others. This may be the case with my perception of your posted image, which I trust I honestly commented.

(I do like the two French scenes you subsequently posted, as they create (through their simplicity and interesting light) in my mind a palable desire to taste the undeniable pleasures of the Ile St-Denis and of an unnamed restaurant or Bistro. What am I doing here, instead of being there?).

My use of the word "technical" was meant not as much in terms of exposure and focus or perspective, but in the use of the practical photographic approaches we employ, such as lighting effects, balances of masses and colour, form, composition, angle of view, texture, etc., that is, the elements of the type that Fred mentioned above when discussing Julie's image. Others may not refer to these as "technical", but it suits me as a term in contrasting or separating those technical aspects or qualities from "what the image says". A different analysis.

When I think I understand an image that interests me, it is usually from the feeling I obtain from it, it's "whole", rather than aestheic, compositional, lighting, or other "technical" aspects. That is why I am so concerned with the mental approaches of the photographer to his subject and how that influences the end result in the image (is it imbued with a feeling or appreciation other than the visual aesthetic?). It is the feeling we bring away from the experience of the image, and not so much a perception of what are its building blocks, that we might discuss to advantage.

How many photographs really affect us in that manner? That critique is what I would also like to have, or not, as feedback from viewers, if I was to put up an image for critique.

simon_crofts · August 11, 2010

What we look for is some kind of argument on why we, each of us individually, like or dislike a photo

</blockquote>

This I can absolutely agree and sympathise with. I enjoy discussing, arguing, thinking about the photos as much as anyone else. It's part of trying to understand it.

and why we find it good or bad or, and mostly, anything in between

</blockquote>

and I can also sympathise with this. In the end, we'll make some kind of judgement on it.

But I think that is different from trying to come up with guidelines or trying to define in advance what is good or what is bad. If we applied the same to, say philosophers, can we define in advance which philosophical theories are good and which are bad? Or do we want philosophers to surprise us with a view of life that we have never thought of before?

To a certain degree a photo cannot travel with explanations. It needs to live its own life and be "judged" by others, the viewers, according to what it can transmit by its inherent qualities. It is those qualities, or lack of the same, that we especially should concentrate on I would think

</blockquote>

And to me this is a perfect example of why it is bad to try to define what is good and what is bad. Why can't a photo travel without explanations? If I see a photo of a man lying down, I may look at it in a different way if I know that the man in the picture is the photographer's father, and that it is a photo of the moment that he died. Is that photo a bad photo if it needs that bit of information to travel with it to attain its full impact? I think it is rules like this ("to be a good photo, we need to be able to look at the photo and judge it without any written information" the picture needs to be able to travel without words) that illustrates the problem of trying to define in advance how we judge.

We should devote all our efforts to trying to understand the pictures, and debating them, making judgements using all our ciritical faculties, not analysing what the rules are according to which we should judge.

Norma Desmond · August 11, 2010

The feelings I get when viewing a photo may come from subject matter alone but more often come from what I see beyond the particular subject matter, the way the subject matter looks, the way it's presented. I don't need to keep it free of descriptions. I am free to get an immediate and perhaps long-lasting gut feeling and then use both my intellect and knowledge of photographic history to gain some perspective on it. For me, it's like patting my head and rubbing my tummy at the same time . . . not all that difficult. As a craftsman, I do well to analyze (especially in a learning environment like PN) why I feel the way I do or respond the way I do. When I'm at a gallery, I may have a very different experience. I don't find it necessary to imagine what the photographer was feeling, though I sometimes might. I mostly look and respond to what I see. The technical, for me -- whether it be lighting, composition, focus, paper printed on, frame used, height the photo is hung at -- is not a separate matter from aesthetics. Aesthetics are transmitted via technicals. The aesthetic, for me, is a combination of emotional and technical matters.

tonmestrom · August 11, 2010

a whole lot of superlatives have been used here and still no answer. Of course there is no answer. At least you came to the right forum Luca because after all, philosophy essentially deals with unanswerable questions ;-) If there was an answer we would all be better, though fairly predictable, photographers.

"Photo's should not be analysed" Why not? We all do it and with good reason to boot. Analysis is based on context and reference and without those no coherent opinion is possible. Jon Wilbrecht mentioned Terry Barret's book which is indeed a good starting point. At least it offers a reference of sorts.

Analysing, evaluating, reviewing (or whatever you want to call it) photos is based on a few criteria which can and will differ individually. But in the end it's all about skill because, and make no mistake about it, it is a skill just as photography is a skill.

All we as photographers can hope for is that the twodimensional image we produce does transcend something beyond a mere representation. Isn'that what we strive for? Isn't that what we look for in other peoples work? Therefore the only important reference is your own.

Still, I think I know where you're coming from Luca and it's true that a lot of junk is indeed intellectualised and being "sold" as something other than the junk it really is,

je ne regrette rien · August 11, 2010

Ton,

"Photo's should not be analysed" Why not? We all do it and with good reason to boot. Analysis is based on context and reference and without those no coherent opinion is possible. Jon Wilbrecht mentioned Terry Barret's book which is indeed a good starting point. At least it offers a reference of sorts.

</blockquote>

I believe it's all about the use of words. The word analysis was used by me in the sense that I don't believe in an approach that takes a photo apart looking at its single elements and features. This would be a literal understanding of the term.

In a broader sense I agree that viewing a photo means understanding and maybe interpreting the interplay of the single elements of a photo, appealing to senses and emotions. This is analysis, too. And this type of analysis is perfectly suitable for me.

However I do not agree with you, Ton, when you say that this is an unanswerable questions. This thread provided a lot of answers, at least to the meaning of "good". Of course a general answer to the question, applicable to all photos, is not realistic and I knew that. But we received a lot of interesting input to the issue of photo judgement.

Julie H · August 11, 2010

Responding to Simon, Anders and Fred's exchange about the role of the picture's maker to/with the viewer, I tend to agree with Anders but I think an interesting contrasting view is offered in the following quotes from experimental filmmaker <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinh_T._Minh-ha">Trinh T. Minh-ha</a>:

"... in the context of "alternative," "experimental" films, to know or not to know whom you are making a film for can both leave you trapped in a form of escapism: you declare that you don't care about audience; you are simply content with the circulation of your work among friends and a number of marginalized workers like yourself; and you continue to protect yourself by remaining safely within identified limits. Whereas I think each film one makes is a bottle thrown into the sea. The fact that you always work on the very limits of the known and unknown audiences, you are bound to modify these limits whose demarcation changes each time and remains unpredictable to you. This is the context in which I said that the filmmaker is responsible for building his or her audience.

"So of importance today, is to make a film in which the viewer -- whether visually present or not -- is inscribed in the way the film is scripted and shot. Through a number of creative strategies, this process is made visible and audible to the audience who is thus solicited to interact and to retrace it in viewing the film. Anybody can make Reassemblage [one of Trinh's films] for example. The part that cannot be imitated, taught, or repeated is the relationship one develops with the tools that define one's activities and oneself as filmmaker. That part is irreducible and unique to each worker, but the part that could be opened up to the viewer is the "unsutured" process of meaning production. ..."

"... Once your film is released you may have to travel with it and the direct contact you have with the public does impact the way you'll be making your next film. Not at all in the sense that you serve the needs of the audience, which is what the mainstream has always claimed to do, but rather in the sense of a mutual challenge: you challenge each other in your assumptions and expectations. So for example, the fact that a number of viewers react negatively to certain choices you have made or to the direction you have taken does not necessarily lead you to renounce them for the next time. On the contrary, precisely because of such reactions you may want to persist and come back to them yet in different ways."

"... For me, interacting with the viewers of our films is part of independent filmmaking. The more acutely we feel the changes in our audiences, the more it demands from us as filmmakers."

</blockquote>

Wouter Willemse · August 11, 2010

I'm very late to the party, but some crumbs are left on the table!

I don't believe in an approach that takes a photo apart looking at its single elements and features.

</blockquote>

Well, yes and no for me. It's not so much the taking apart that is wrong in my view (quite the opposite), but it's the risk of not being able to put it back together. But identifying the seperate elements, seeing how they interact with one another and how one element may catch the eye more than another are the types of exercises that (in my belief) are making me a better photographer. The insights that come from these "torn apart" photos are the chunks of information I take with me behind a viewfinder again.

As we're all photographers here, I think for all of us working on critiques, formulating them, describing the taste as well as a "use of generic goodness" is, most of all, a learning experience. So, any approach that works for you individually (for getting grips with what works and doesn't work for you), is valid, good and useful.

As for the generic goodness; I think most of it boils down to taste. Fred's well-written critique above (I came no further then: "what am I looking at?"), for me, most of it boils down to taste still. Noting a technique being used would be generic goodness. To say it's used well, or to good effect or anything similar, is already subjective.

But among those techniques, there are quite some seemingly subjective tricks, which may not be that subjective at all. Colour theories, generic perceptions of light, contrast, focus and out of focus, and some more things are well researched matters. It can still be a matter of taste, but instinct reactions play a significant role too. Isn't that explaining already a large portion of the "good"?

tonmestrom · August 11, 2010

This thread provided a lot of answers, at least to the meaning of "good".

</blockquote>

I don't read it that way myself Luca. As far as I can see it generated a lot of answers about peoples individual criteria to what they deem to be good which was as predictable as it is valid. At best it only tells us something about peoples individual interpretation of the meaning of good.

As far as analysis is concerned both peoples background and individual perception are important. 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. Sure one would expect a more indepth analysis/evaluation/review from a curator than from someone who's just starting out but I think both are equally worthwhile and valuable.

On another note there is a lot of work that I get to see that I think is good (for a variety of reasons) but which I don't particularly like. On the other hand there is also work that I like but don't think is especially good. Nothing new for all of us here I suspect.

If this thread has indeed come any closer, to whatever degree, to the meaning of good why then is it so damned difficult to evaluate other peoples work, let alone our own. Why then is individual perception the all overriding factor?Why do we sometimes get raving reviews on our work (if we're lucky that is) while on the other hand we f**k up as much if not more?

Yes Luca, I think it's a unanswerable question.

AJHingel · August 11, 2010

Thanks Julie I did not know Trinh's work but a person that during the Vietnam war studied piano and music composition at the National Conservatory of Music and Theater in Saigon, must be somebody off the common track. She sounds very interesting indeed and the quote you have chosen is bull's eye. Just the small formulation:

" the part that could be opened up to the viewer is the "unsutured" process of meaning production. .." and not the "the relationship one develops with the tools that define one's activities"

</blockquote>

She is fully right in her formulation on the relationship between the audience and her and its impact on what she does next in her film productions. It is because of this that I would concentrate on the "consumption" of photos more than on the "production" - if it can be formulated like that.

AJHingel · August 11, 2010

Arthur thanks for your comments on the photo I uploaded. You mention that you understand it better now that you know were its origin is to be found (after confronting a waiting line to visit the place worse than in any airport on strike!). You write:

It is no doubt symbolic of the State and the modern Germany and has reflected thesounds of many discussions and debates within it.

</blockquote>

Not for me. For others and especially maybe Germans you might be right, but I see it in totally abstract terms and like as mentions what I see (especially in big format I must confess). For me, there is nothing to gain from "understanding" this photo in context terms. No, what matters in my eyes is the dynamic force between forms (sharp straight lines, curves, patterns etc), lights and the role of the deep black and the general composition and framing (nothing outside the frame seems to be able to add to the scene). For me it is violent and disturbing and not necessarily a good life companion but it is also, still in my eyes, a composition in some sort of (mental?) balance. This is not how I shot the photo. It is how I see it as viewer.

luis_g · August 11, 2010

Ton - "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."

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.

TM - "Sure one would expect a more indepth analysis/evaluation/review from a curator than from someone who's just starting out but I think both are equally worthwhile and valuable."

All talents being equal (which is a big qualifier), the guy that frames pictures 8 hrs a day does it better than you. The printer that's put in his 10,000 hrs (while you, of course, were putting in your 10,000 hrs of shooting) prints better than you can. The critic/academic who has put in his 10K hrs can do that better than you, too. However, taking the context of the experience of the reviewers into account, both reviews are equally valid.

Norma Desmond · August 12, 2010

I analyze photographs to help me (learn to) see.

Talking about a "well-used" technique isn't, in my mind, a matter of taste. "Good" is a judgment, though it is a different sort of judgment than "I like." Just noting techniques wouldn't, in my mind, describe "goodness". Goodness lies beyond such neutrality. Judging something good requires more of a commitment than simply establishing the technique used. I can judge someone to have used a technique well and thereby say they have a good sense of how to accomplish certain looks . . . and still not like what they've accomplished.

There are many reasons to analyze and not all analyses are equal any more than all photos are equal. On that point, I think Luis nailed it. I may analyze according to what I think the photographer was feeling, what I as viewer am feeling, etc. Ultimately, though, I get the most out of analyzing what I see and how what I see can be put in terms of photographing. Looking is looking, of course, but looking at photographs (and producing them) is different from looking at the world. Analyzing some of those differences seems to me essential in honing the craft of making photographs.

je ne regrette rien · August 12, 2010

About analysis.

In the end we (viewers) are shown only a small rectangle. All the rest - and it's much, much more that what presented in the small rectangle - we can only imagine.

Julie, Fred stick to the emotional and sensorial reaction caused by a photo.

And that's what counts for me too.

When I rejected "analysis" I was thinking of the singling out of elements, some according to some aesthetic rules, others relating to different features.

Regardless of the way it's analysed, the visual message of a photo has to be considered in its entirety, in my opinion.

AJHingel · August 12, 2010

Fred if you permit (I'm not always sure!) I think your formulation above pinpoints one of the question we have discussed earlier in the thread. You write

I may analyze according to what I think the photographer was feeling, what I as viewer am feeling, etc. Ultimately, I generally get the most out of analyzing what I see and how what I see can be put in terms of photographing. Looking is looking, of course, but looking at photographs (and producing them) is different from looking at the world.

</blockquote>

I believe that your analysis of "what the photographer was feeling" is of little interest to us as photographers if you do not immediately go further and tell not only how you as viewer feel but how these feelings can be traced back "in terms of photographing" - not in general, but concretely as it is done in the photo you are viewing. This is where we learn something from each other, as photographers. I would for example learn what photographic means to use if I wish to produce feelings in the head of Fred. If such means start being detected by several people I might have come nearer to mastering means in general when shooting photographs. "Means" are here of course: themes, compositions, symbols, light contrast, lines, DOF, sharpness, blur etc etc.

Your last sentence above is more tricky. First part is self obvious, but that "looking at photographs is different from looking at the world", I'm not at all sure. That looking is different from living in the world should never be forgotten, but for me at least when I carry a camera I look at the world as a photographer. I see scenes, scenarios and frames. Looking at photos is just constrained by the fact that you do not see what is outside the frame. Apart from that the activity of "seeing" is the same.

Norma Desmond · August 12, 2010

Anders, not for me. The camera doesn't just eliminate what's outside the frame. It can focus what's in the frame differently, just framing what's framed changes it, it emphasize elements differently, relates them to each other drastically differently in terms of perceived scale, even color and shape. When I am photographing with intention, I have the photograph in mind at least to some extent, even if I can't fully pre-visualize it. Looking with an eye toward that photograph is, for me, seeing differently than when I am just looking around me. Looking at someone as the subject of a portrait is different for me than looking at them when I'm off on a walk with them or in the midst of a discussion with them. The photograph is not the same as the photographed, and I don't expect the same things in visual terms from the world around me as I do from my own or others' photographing or photographs.

je ne regrette rien · August 13, 2010

Fred,

I agree on framing.

Increasingly I try to visualise my "frame" not using the camera actually.

Funny enough I walk around framing situations virtually. Even if I don't have a camera with me.

That's the craft part of photography.

stamos · August 13, 2010

"Why (when) is a photo "good""

I want to give my honest answer.

My answer is:

I do not know.

fate_faith_change_chains · August 13, 2010

Timing. Let's keep it on that.

antoniobassiphotography · August 14, 2010

Luca

Very good post, I share the same feelings. Sorry for skipping the whole discussion above but my English is to basic and slow to be able to catch up. I hope somebody here will be able to give you a clear answer but I doubt it. I will try to write my feelings, hoping not to make my ideas (and yours) even more confused than they already are. Here we go.

We do actually live in the magic world of relativism and I believe we must talk about perceptivity (insight), sensitiveness and intelligence if we want to be able to define what's good and what's bad. Whatever answer we'll come up to, it will be always very subjective. Starting from the aesthetic values that we learn growing up in one or another society, we must use our intelligence, senses and intuitive ability to go beyond just the values themselves. You did that in commenting one of my photos (below) and you perfectly understood the sense of that shot (I encourage the readers to check out that comment, it's very interesting). There, we connected and we shared the same thoughts getting to a common understanding of certain aesthetic and philosophical values.

Having said that, I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to define what's good or bad. It's so subjective anyways (Glenn Gould hated Mozart). Of course, the technical quality of a photograph can be determined by evaluating data with specific knowledge. However, the difference between a bad shot and a decent one can be determined by using mere instinct; the aesthetic values that have been imprinted on our subconscious speak to us. If you listen to a bad violinist doing his best and to a good one just strumming on his fiddle, you'll hear the difference. If you watch a real painter doing abstract and a wanna-be one doing portrait, you will realize that the first one can really do a portrait and the second one can't (if you know what I mean).

je ne regrette rien · August 15, 2010

Hi Antonio,

true!

Somewhere here in the "philosophy" forum somebody wrote (apologise my imperfect quotation) that photography is so diffused and that everybody can produce a photograph.

The challenge is to understand what is conscious in a photo and what not.

Anybody can take a painter's canvas and produce cuts in it. Or burn it with a welding flame. But that does not mean that they become Alberto Burri out of a sudden.

Anybody can photograph the wheels of a truck trailer, but this does not make a William Eggleston of them.

antoniobassiphotography · August 15, 2010

Exactly. That's why it is very important to follow our instincts. Sometime we force ourselves to find a style or follow a specific path in order to reach a goal but I believe it is better to let it be. Panta rei, the ancient Greeks used to say, that means everything flows. I guess it's important what's good for us, not for others. Let others express their opinion on your work.

je ne regrette rien · August 16, 2010

Antonio,

your words resound a reflections going on these days.

In fact it has a very practical implication: I have nearly completed a photo book on my late father-in-law (the one with a character you noticed in my photo.net portfolio).

About 40 photos of the ones which strike me most.

But.

But I'm emotionally involved, since I knew him quite well. To what extent should I give way to my "bias". Should I ask somebody not "involved" to do the final editing?

There are very many different ways to look at a photo. There are many different features to highlight.

Take <a href="../photo/6249130">this photo</a>, for example.

The object is wonderful (the Jaguar E-Type, a piece of modern design). I forgot that placing the main subject in the dead centre of the photo does not always make it interesting. :-)

Ok. I realised that there was the woman looking at the car, so I changed the crop, placing the car on one side to emphasise the woman.

But: the room has delicate hues. The blue from the outside sky, the yellow from the indoor lighting and some red from other rooms.

There are many ways to look at a photo. Not all are immediate and some require external input to come up.

david_joseph4 · August 16, 2010

A good photograph in my opinion is one that "means" something to the people who are not in it other than the photographer. It either conveys a message to the viewer or reminds them of their own experience usually in a positive way ie they have some " empathy " to its message.

je ne regrette rien · August 17, 2010

David Joseph,

I agree.

A good photo cannot be just based on the empathy its author has with it.

Therefore I think that there needs to be some "external" input for photo editing.

tonmestrom · August 17, 2010

Like/dislike is not analysis

</blockquote>

sorry for my belated reaction Luis but that's not what I said

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