Why (when) is a photo "good"

simon_crofts · August 21, 2010

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.

</blockquote>

Yes, I say the same after a few drinks. But really it's the bazookas ;)

AlanKlein · August 21, 2010

<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>

</blockquote>

Simon: Those are all very good reasons. Let me add other things about good photos that are also in there:

<ul>

<li>beauty - prettiness and color just for the sake of it such as pretty landscape. </li>

<li>escape - when I sit at my desk grinding away and look up at an Hawaiian sunset, I can escape for a moment from life's mundane and dreary and monotony. </li>

<li>nostalgia - memory of things past that have happened whether a picture of our youth, our child when he or she was small or a wedding ceremony.</li>

<li>pride - how many people post a picture that they made that everyone else thinks is just awful but it's theirs? And they think it's great, nevermind what anyone else thinks, screw them! It's mine!</li>

<li>love - You look at at a picture of someone who you love and ... well what can I say? </li>

</ul>

Probably the best photos are personal where the photograph has meaning and gives joy only to the photographer.

simon_crofts · August 21, 2010

<ul>

<li>beauty - prettiness and color just for the sake of it such as pretty landscape. </li>

<li>escape - when I sit at my desk grinding away and look up at an Hawaiian sunset, I can escape for a moment from life's mundane and dreary and monotony. </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

Don't get me wrong, I love sunsets, I just don't like looking at photos of them. I can sometimes appreciate pictorialist photos too, but I absolutely detest and despise anything that reminds me of the 'camera club' aesthetic (you know, oversaturated landscapes, milky water, Robins sitting on frosted twigs). For me that kind of thing is a kind of insult to photography that I believe in and feel passionate about, because quite a lot of the general public think it is good to copy that kind of junk, and this kind of visual illiteracy and love of kitsch means that much more valuable things don't get attention (or funding). Amateur photography magazines are probably the most to blame for this.

So for me, the words "prettiness and color just for the sake of it such as pretty landscape" pretty much summarise all the very worst and most horrible about widely held sensibilities about photography.

Which I suppose, brings us back to the fact that what is good and bad is a personal judgement according to ones own preferences and moral code. Which is the way it should be perhaps.

luis_g · August 21, 2010

Luca, those were technically sound illustrations of dramatic landscapes, and little more. The photographers seem distanced from their subjects.

Sunset pictures? I'm with Simon.

To the inventory list for photographs (with which I am generally in disagreement), I'd like to add: intelligence.

DNA? Thanks to what is commonly referred to as the Great Narrowing and contrary to popular belief, humans have very little diversity in their DNA, which probably explains Komar and Melamid's findings.

AlanKlein · August 21, 2010

Discounting "prettiness" as a reason millions of people think a photo is "good" seems rather elitist to me. Does this mean the people who like color photos are know nothing aesthetics because they think color more attractive than the "professional" and "distinctive" texture and form of B&W? Pretty soon you'll get down to B/W photos that are off center, out of focus, etc etc because only "that" represents true photography. Aren't we all better if we understand that everyone is different and should be allowed their interpretation of what's nice to them?

Norma Desmond · August 21, 2010

Allen, elitism may just be vital and necessary. Plumbers think they know better than the average guy whether a particular plumbing job was done well or not. And they do. Photographers think they know better than the average guy what's a good photograph. And they do. Not all people who use pipes are plumbers and not all people who take pictures are photographers.

If someone dismisses black and white because they think color is more attractive, without looking a little deeper into what the photograph actually is, they are certainly entitled to their opinion and I'm just as entitled to think their opinion is shallow and ill-considered.

The fact that some of us recognize the myopia of limiting what is liked or what is good to certain strict guidelines (like I only like color) does not mean we will then impose limits on what is good. My suggesting to someone that they not automatically limit their likes to color photographs is NOT the same as my telling them they should only like black and white photographs.

antoniobassiphotography · August 21, 2010

Simon

I agree with your points about good photography.

About your last bullet

<ul>

<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>

</blockquote>

That is exactly what makes me like a woman, not the bazookas.

antoniobassiphotography · August 21, 2010

Fred

Good words. There are a lot of professional musicians that don't quite understand music (in my orchestra I know many...).

I believe each photo has its own color and there isn't enough space for much interpretation. You get it right or you don't.

AlanKlein · August 21, 2010

Fred: I was describing a "good" photo from the standpoint of the average viewer not the photographer. Sure, photographers will understand and appreciate more than the average guy the techniques and difficulty that goes into making a good photo. However, I can look at a house and say that's a really pretty house, I like the way they arranged the rooms, I like the faucets they installed, nice landscaping, etc. without having to be a carpenter or plumber or horticulturist. Do you have to be an autoworker to know the difference in quality between a BMW and a Chevy? (sorry Chevy owners). I was describing from the aesthetic standpoint of the person looking. Even amatuers and non-photographers can instinctively pick a good photo. For the most part anyway.

simon_crofts · August 21, 2010

photographers will understand and appreciate more than the average guy the techniques and difficulty that goes into making a good photo

</blockquote>

With a good photo, techniques are, or should be, unimportant. It is given that to achieve the photo, the creator will have had to overcome whatever was necessary to do so. Otherwise what you have is not a good photo, but a good demonstration of a technique.

Shakespeare was good not because he could use an iambic pentameter and made it rhyme nicely. That may be hard at times, but it was just a technique. We can admire his use of technique, but it's not what made him great. It was the power and originality of his writing, the fact that it spoke honestly and straightforwardly of human emotions, the fact that it took his audience and twisted them around his finger to make them weep or laugh, or perhaps even experience subtle new emotions they didn't even know existed.

Photos should be a bit like that. If they make you admire the technique of the photographer, that's a sign that they are not good photos.

So in that sense, the general public, and an educated viewer have a level playing field. The educated viewer however is likely to be quicker at spotting a cheap trick that has been done a thousand times before and has been copied from elsewhere, and getting to the heart of whether the photo has some originality or power.

For that matter, education and reading can help when it comes to reading and fully appreciating the depths and intricacies of Shakespeare.

Norma Desmond · August 21, 2010

Simon, I was at the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/arts/design/16matisse.html">Matisse exhibit at New York's MOMA</a> this week (I'm on vacation here), his work from 1913-1917 where he was leaving the imprint of technique all over his canvases. Some of my favorite photographers on PN make apparent a lot about technique and the plasticity of the photographic medium. (I'd link to them but I'm hesitant to name people as examples in a public forum without asking their permission.)

I am mindful of the fact that the Greeks had no word for art other than techne, and how important craft is to the expression of that human emotion you talk so passionately about. I agree with what you've said on that side of the coin. I think you are most likely talking about the negative aspect of unconscious wearing of technique on the sleeve or accidentally leaving its marks, which can often just be a mistake. But when a photo has me admiring technique (like a Weston print or the Nan Goldin prints I just saw this week), it is not a sign to me that they are not good photos. I don't think Shakespeare's abilities to craft his meter well was "just" a technique. I think a lot of artists access their emotions precisely through technique. It's the audiences and viewers that usually get more into the emotional aspects because that's what's accessible to them. But for the artists, the best of whom are craftsmen, their hearts and hands are bound together.

I'm not sure if you meant to imply this in your last statement, but I just want to make sure to add that just as education can help reading and fully appreciating Shakespeare, it can help seeing and fully understanding visual art. We can learn to see.

je ne regrette rien · August 22, 2010

Guys,

I'm not a fan of sunsets. Nor do I search for sunsets. I did one recently, but just because I liked the colours, and left it <a href="../photo/11291454">as it was</a>.

Julie somewhere posted:

From many of Luca's comments, here and elsewhere, it seems to me that he's particularly interested in drama, but starting from a base of presence.

</blockquote>

<ul>

<li>texture (presence)</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>story (drama)</li>

</ul>

She hit the nail on the head as regards my photography.

I just realise that irony is very difficult to bring through in forum threads. But we knew that, didn't we? :-). Despite :-)!!!!!

je ne regrette rien · August 22, 2010

Simon,

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

</blockquote>

Because you are wrong in your initial statement:

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):

</blockquote>

Human beings have, since their existence, searched for categories. That's what philosophy is about. Posing questions which are impossible (or very difficult) to respond to.

In the end you yourself seem to have the same need, even if you initially denied it.

Let's not forget that aesthetics is part of philosophy.

________________________________________

The mainstream way of thinking influences aesthetics in a determining way.

The "golden ratio" (at the basis of "the rule of thirds" in photography) and the "Canon" were used to judge visual effects, of pictures, statues, photos ... by ancient Greeks. I believe the Romans were much more pragmatic (until the decline of the empire).

Nowadays "relativism" is much more common in aesthetics and elsewhere.

However:

there seem to be people who believe they own the truth about aesthetics.

More than finding out 'Why (when) a photo is "good"', my intention was to uncover the certainties cast in stone of people who seem to pretend to own the truth about photographic aesthetics. And moreover, the truth about their own photography. :-)

Your list of "good" elements:

Have you noticed that most of your bullets contain "me" (telling me, showing me).

Your points reflect my points: when somebody says that a photo is good, the value judgement of this person needs to be considered along with

<ul>

<li>emotional/sensorial perception</li>

<li>experience</li>

<li>culture and education</li>

<li>background</li>

<li>his/her recombination capability</li>

<li>his/her capability to understand visual innovation.</li>

</ul>

Subjectivity before objectivity. But some objectivity is not completely ruled out.

I simply love Fred's equation of photography with craft.

And IMO he nails it saying:

Plumbers think they know better than the average guy whether a particular plumbing job was done well or not. And they do. Photographers think they know better than the average guy what's a good photograph. And they do. Not all people who use pipes are plumbers and not all people who take pictures are photographers.

</blockquote>

And Antonio strengthens the statement:

There are a lot of professional musicians that don't quite understand music (in my orchestra I know many...).

</blockquote>

And lastly, Simon, quoting (sigh!!!) myself (August 15, 11:04 a.m.)

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.

</blockquote>

(Please, this is not to start a discussion on Burri or Eggleston, they are just examples)

simon_crofts · August 22, 2010

The mainstream way of thinking influences aesthetics in a determining way. The "golden ratio" (at the basis of "the rule of thirds" in photography) and the "Canon" were used to judge visual effects, of pictures, statues, photos

</blockquote>

Ah the Rule of Thirds! <a href="http://simoncroftsphoto.com/blog/?p=327">I did a blog post on it a couple of days ago</a> which is relevant. Coming up with rules to judge what is good and what isn't is deeply damaging.

I never could understand how the idea came about that the 'rule' was given legitimacy by the Golden Ratio, The golden ratio is a precise mathematical formula that isn't even particularly close to a third. It is used by people like the one I referred to in my blog post to assess photography in the way the person in my blog post does.

I have a feeling that in a few hundred years, someone will come up with "ten note theory". They will have got hold of a copy of Berg's violin concerto, and will say: "The ancient Europeans believed that to be good, music had to follow twelve note technique. That's a bit too complicated for us, so we'll call it ten note technique - any music that complies with ten note technique is good, music that doesn't - isn't. It's an ancient rule of musical aesthetics, you know'

I simply love Fred's equation of photography with craft

</blockquote>

And I on the contrary don't like it at all!

I wasn't trying to say that good photography can't use good technique, or that we can't admire it. But the technique is very much secondary to the reason why it is good. Matisse is a good example - we admire him for his bold and dynamic compositions, stripped down, the colours, the fact that he is expressing raw emotions, the fact that his paintings reflect something very vital about the zeitgeist - it was a time when beneath the elegant surface of Vienna 1900, savagery and basic ugly human instincts were just below the surface. His painting of savages dancing in a circle pared painting down to its raw elements, created a new kind of dynamic visual look that had never been seen before, and expressed the spirit of a generation, all at one go. The First World War was about to happen, Egon Schiele was showing the base and ugly side of human nature. The Rite of Spring was about to create a savage revolution in music, that also showed this raw savage side of human nature. The world was about to change. Matisse, wasn't just using interesting brush strokes - he was part of this revolution.

Yes, he used an interesting approach to using his brush to achieve all this. But if our primary reaction to his paintings is 'nice technique' then we've totally missed the point and are in urgent need of a lobotomy.

So this is what I meant by: if we find ourselves admiring the technique in a photo, it's a sign that it's not a good photo. We can admire the technique in a good photo, but it's not why we like it, it should be waaaay down the list. It's an afterthought - great photographers should use the technique appropriate to achieve what they want to.

As an aside, it's probably one reason why I'm not a great fan of Ansel Adams. He was a brilliant printer, a superb technician, a great writer who came up with an excellent zone theory, and - a pretty good photographer. But not, for me, a brilliant photographer. His use of craft was more important than his photography. No doubt others will violently disagree with that.

However: there seem to be people who believe they own the truth about aesthetics.

</blockquote>

I suspect most people think that, including the taxi driver who says 'all art is bullshit'. Maybe everyone does own the truth about aesthetics??

Norma Desmond · August 22, 2010

Just a minor qualification, Luca. I don't equate art with craft. I said the Greeks did. I talked about art and craft being inseparable in terms of process and in terms of my response as viewer. I was trying to emphasize the role of craft even when it comes to emotion, which many people, viewers especially, don't seem to connect.

je ne regrette rien · August 22, 2010

My post was not about rules.

Look at my bio and you'll see what I think about rules.

I never said that a photo should be judged looking at it's technical features.

I believe exactly the opposite: I talked about

<ul>

<li>emotional/sensorial perception</li>

<li>experience</li>

<li>culture and education</li>

<li>background</li>

<li>his/her recombination capability</li>

<li>his/her capability to understand visual innovation.</li>

</ul>

Saying that photography is like craft does not mean reducing it to mere technical aspects.

What I noticed is that you, Simon, in a previous post reject the utility of reasoning about aesthetic categories in one sentence and in the immediately following sentence develop judgement criteria.

In the same vein, you reject the comparison of photography and craft and in the immediately following sentence you recognise the relationship between the visual message of a photo and the technique, even if

it should be waaaay down the list

</blockquote>

Nobody here - and I think I can speak for Fred, too - wants to adopt a technique-based approach to photographic judgement. By no means.

I'm annoyed about this rejecting arguments picking out statements and discussing them completely out of context.

je ne regrette rien · August 22, 2010

Fred,

maybe I used the term "equation" in the wrong way.

I intended the relationship as you put it

I talked about art and craft being inseparable in terms of process and in terms of my response as viewer. I was trying to emphasize the role of craft even when it comes to emotion, which many people, viewers especially, don't seem to connect.

</blockquote>

And I agree.

Synthesising unfortunately leads to oversimplifying sometimes.

Sorry about that.

AlanKlein · August 22, 2010

I don't think the rules of thirds or more precisely the golden ratio is an artificial contraption. It provides balance to a photo that becomes pleasing to the brain. It's in our DNA. Before I ever heard of these things I was composing pictures that to me were most pleasing when I composed to those effects. It was subconcious. After I heard of the rule-of-thrids, I looked back at my pictures and noticed that many comported to this. Who learns that sweets are tasty? Our brains are set this way and the mathematical calculations and "golden ratio" explanations came afterwards. Of course, not every picture is or should be set this way. But it is a tool to assist especially those just learning. I probably use this most when cropping when I don't get the original shot just right. Because this is the brain, and not learned, amateur and experts can tell a "good" picture from the "bad". Maybe a better word would be more "pleasing" since that's an emotional responce rather than "good" which is a judgment word. Maybe that's where we are getting mixed up. We're comparing "good" with "pleasing". A sunset photo may be pleasing but not good. And a good picture might be aesthetically ugly.

Norma Desmond · August 22, 2010

Luca, no need to apologize. I knew you got the spirit of my post. Just didn't want to leave the idea dangling that I might think craft and art are equivalent.

As for quoting and responding, it makes for easy reference to what another said and it's done a lot and I do it myself, though I try to limit it. Not speaking about this thread or anyone here participating, but I think it's a bad habit to get into. Because often responding to a one-liner is playing a game of gotcha. I've seen many times where the spirit of an entire post is quite clear, yet another poster will zero in on one line that may be in some way off or not quite said accurately and just pounce on that one line, rather than addressing the spirit of the post. That always seems unfortunate and is a bad way to establish communication.

simon_crofts · August 22, 2010

In the same vein, you reject the comparison of photography and craft and in the immediately following sentence you recognise the relationship between the visual message of a photo and the technique

</blockquote>

Yes. It's perfectly logical. Photography requires a certain amount of craft to do it. Some photographs require more craft than others. But the amount of skill used in the craft has little to do with whether the photograph is good or not. It has a little bit to do with it, but only a little.

The problem is, that there's a great tendency for people to admire technique - the craft - without actually thinking about whether a photo is good. This is what you typically see at camera clubs all around the land. People concentrate on technique because that's easy, and means that they can take great photos by applying a formula. You don't need much of an aesthetic sense or experience to be impressed with a snappy technique. Like the guy in my blog. That is why I reject it. It is not 100% wrong, it's only 95% wrong.

That is why I say that, if you hear everyone praising a photo for its technique, the chances are it's not a good photo.

I don't know where you see the contradiction in this.

As for the contradiction in trying to define what is a good photo. A definition is a kind of rule. If you define an elephant, then you refer to that definition to work out whether something is an elephant or not. It becomes a rule.

I enjoy arguing, discussion, and my point is that you cannot define what a good photo is in advance. So yes, I am joining in the discussion even though I think it is not possible or desirable to define what a good photo is. Rather than providing a definition, I tried to set out some bits of experience that might help (or can equally well be rejected), but the important bit is not to follow them, or to apply them to a photo as a formula, like the rule of thirds - but to use experience, and then reject it, and to take a decision based on intuition. The important point is that these should not be taken as a definition of what is a good photo, they are just a process that you can go through in helping you make your own decision. You may see this as a contradiction, I see it as common sense.

So my list of criteria for what makes a good photo - the whole point is that they are not in fact a list of criteria. The important point is not to apply them, but to use them, and then reject them. The important bit is the rejection - 'this photo has no power, tells us nothing about the human condition, is not especially original etc. but I really like it anyway'.

simon_crofts · August 22, 2010

I don't think the rules of thirds or more precisely the golden ratio is an artificial contraption. It provides balance to a photo that becomes pleasing to the brain. It's in our DNA

</blockquote>

We will just have to (strongly) disagree about this. Perhaps it's a discussion for another thread, I think it would be too much of a diversion to go into it here, it's quite a big subject in itself.

simon_crofts · August 22, 2010

Look at my bio and you'll see what I think about rules

</blockquote>

Looking at your bio I see:

There are rules. But sometimes they are there to be broken.

</blockquote>

I'm sorry, but I really don't like it. It's a trite camera club orthodoxy that I often hear repeated. You hear judges in local camera club competitions all the time "this picture is good because it deliberately breaks the X rule'.

It would be much, much better to ignore the X rule to begin with, preferably not to know about its supposed existence. Use mind bleach to get rid of it. A picture is not good because it breaks the rule. It is a picture, it should be assessed as a whole by looking at it, really looking, why it was taken, what is it overall effect. This stuff about complying with the rules or breaking the rules, it just gets in the way.

je ne regrette rien · August 22, 2010

Alan,

this thing about the rule-of-thirds might be just an ex-post conceptualisation.

What's actually important in my view is to decide about which element in the scene has to be placed where, or, in other terms, how to place the photographic frame around a scene we have seen and we want to portrait.

This is simply composition.

It's impossible to develop ex-ante rules for composition, because the placement of elements in the frame is only one of the elements of visual communication of a photo.

And after all it is desirable to me that photos are worth not only because what's depicted is placed in the right corner. :-)

Norma Desmond · August 22, 2010

As with anything, there needs to be tension and a sense of balance. The balance may lean more to the technical or more to the visual and emotional. Rarely is there an equivalent amount of each.

There are many photographers who concern themselves only with craft, gear, and a search for technical perfection. Generally, they don't make good photos. There are as many who seem to think that emotion is the only important thing and they don't want to take the steps necessary to learn their craft. They make pictures that are just as bad as the first group. Those who marry the two sides of the coin are the ones whose work I'm usually the most interested in getting intimate with, though I come across exceptions, ones whose technique wows me in the absence of much else and ones whose vision wows me in the absence of a honed craft.

When the craft isn't there, I usually find that the vision itself and the emotion put into it is lacking precisely because of the lack of craft. Attention to craft helps refine vision and emotion. The expression of emotion is not the same as having emotion. There's much more to expressing it than having it. And the expression of emotion is, indeed, very much a matter of crafting something that expresses it.

je ne regrette rien · August 22, 2010

Simon,

"It's a trite camera club orthodoxy that I often hear repeated"

I never belonged to a camera club, never discussed with judges, never heard this phrase from others. It's an original quotation of myself.

Your interpretation of my quotation is wrong.

It is not in support of rules, but in support of the non-applicability of rules.

As said, I'm annoyed by this approach to discussion. It completely disregards context.

Since you recognised at the very beginning (you were the first respondent to my OP):

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.

</blockquote>

your polemic in these final posts is unfounded.

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