What makes a great photo

[jordan2240]

<p>Perhaps this has been beaten to death, but the site gets new members and we take new photos often, so perhaps it's ok to discuss again. </p>

<p>I was talking to my son recently, who is on a ski trip in Colorado, and our discussion got me thinking about this. He has a camera with him, and when I mentioned that he might get some good shots (seeing as how Colorado is such a scenic state), he responded that he doesn't know what a good shot is. I responded with "It's anything you like."</p>

<p>But it got me to wondering about what makes a great shot. For me, there are two things that can make a photo great. One is that it causes me to strongly feel an emotion - sadness, happiness, anger, etc. Or two, it captures a moment that will likely be difficult or impossible to capture again. I suppose all moments are unique in some respect, but there are certain subjects and objects that are photographed often in similar conditions.</p>

<p>Below, I've posted two of my own photographs that I consider 'great.' They may not stand out technically, but I don't think that's always necessary. What I like about the first is the way the duck lines up with the window dormer. This is cropped from a wider shot, but I could stand at this location all day, and likely not recreate this positioning. Of course, it happened completely by accident, but that's beside the point. The other shot is one I took years ago with a P&S at a son's soccer game (he's not in it). It still cracks me up every time I look at it.</p>

<p>Not looking for critiques, but just wondering what examples you might have of 'great' shots, and why you think they are great.<br>

<br>

</p><div></div>

[jordan2240]

<p>The next example.</p><div></div>

[AJHingel]

<p>Good question, Bill. We will have as many answers to the question as number of persons who care to answer it.<br /> I'm among those who believes, that if it all just in the eyes of the beholder, the answers, and consequently the discussion, will be of less interest to all of us. What might be of interest is, if we, or some at least, happen to share some these answers to the question of what we consider a "great photo".<br /> <br /> I will dare an eye, as you, and come with an example among my own shots - or rather print (39.4x39.4 inch on Canson infinity rag photographique, 100% cotton).</p>

<p>The image is not difficult and certainly not impossible to shoot, as the image proves. It doesn't demand luck or special skills beyond the mastering of a up-scale camera Canon 5Dii) and high quality lens (Canon 135/2) - and not even, maybe; but it demands surely the eye to see the potentialities of the scene, and to find the scene, which is certainly not rare. <br /> I don't feel any of the emotions you mention concerning this photo (sadness, happiness, anger, etc.) and yet it gives me a strong feeling of satisfaction because of the numerous dimensions of the social, economic, physical and cultural context, that can be read out of the image (documentation) - and not least because of the strong, and very simple composition of the frame (aesthetics). <br /> It does also count among the images I have sold, which is kind of satisfaction too and a valid criteria of a "great photo".</p><div></div>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I think it presumptuous to say that any of my photos are "great," but I like this shot, which I recently put up in the "No Words" forum. Not as sharp as I would like, but it captures an interaction between two people that I think is worthwhile. Captured with an Olympus OM-1 and a Zuiko 50mm f/1.4. Shutter speed and aperture not recorded.</p><div></div>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>These are some criteria for me:</p>

<ul>

<li>emotional impact</li>

<li>light</li>

<li>contrast</li>

<li>content</li>

<li>composition</li>

<li>context</li>

<li>color (in non B+W)</li>

<li>ambient</li>

<li>style or "signature"</li>

</ul>

<p>These are not entirely separate, and they have different weight depending on the type of photography for me. </p><div></div>

[jordan2240]

<p>Anders, I would say 'satisfaction' is certainly among the qualities a 'great' photo would elicit from the photographer. Agreed that having an eye for a shot is an important factor.</p>

<p>Hector, 'great' is relative, and I too would not be so presumptious as to label any of my shots as such in the overall world of photography. What I was really referring to was what one might consider 'great' within their own portfolio. Perhaps 'great' is too strong a word, but I think anyone who takes pictures as a hobby or professionally feels they have some that stand out.</p>

<p>Leslie, can't find any fault in your list.</p>

[Thomas J.]

<p>We are all too emotionally tied to our own photographs to be objective enough to really know if they're "great". I personally think my photographs are boring but if a family, friend, or stranger is genuinely moved to say it's great or they really like it, then that's how I know if it's a good one.</p>

<p>I was on line once an Walgreens with an 8x10 photo I just picked up of a snowy winter scene I took and a younger couple behind me saw me looking at it and asked if I took the shot. When I said yes, they were both saying what a beautiful photo it was. That was quite flattering to say the least.</p>

<p><br />In the modern internet digital age of photography, a well trained chimpanzee with a D800 can get "amazing" shots, so the over-abundance of "amazing" shots that we see everyday reminds me of the old supply and demand from Economics 101: too much supply of something lessens its demand and value.</p>

<p>Snapshots of family and special life moments are great for nostalgia and are quite special and precious, especially when you look at them years after, but most of them are not "great" photographs.</p>

<p>Now, the shots I see on National Geographic and Associated Press continue to blow me away and I easily say make great and interesting photographs.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Of course it depends on ones definition of "great", which like everything else on an individual basis , is subjective. And in photography great, can't always be graded by technical or aesthetic qualities.</p>

<p>To me a "great" photo, is one that visually, (since it's an image) connects to me somehow, someway on some level. And it reaches some level of perfectness. Either through a combination of technique and composition. Or by making a statement or revealing something hidden from ones everyday view.</p>

<p>There is an old joke about sculpting. If one wanted to carve say an elephant out of a block of stone. One simply needs to chip away everything that doesn't look like an elephant.</p>

<p>By the same token a great photo has everything, needs nothing.</p>

<p> </p>

[Sanford]

<p>Jealously</p>

[etphoto]

<p>I think the term "great" gets thrown around too loosely. I've taken tens of thousand images in the last 25 plus years and would not consider any of them great. Good, very good sure, but in my mind, great is something the majority of people think is great.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Perhaps 'great' is too strong a word, ...

 

In my opinion, the word "great" has lost most of its strength. It has become an overused descriptor in the

internet age, similar to the word "awesome," and is pretty much a throwaway word that now has little

power. It's a quick-reaction word used when people are in a hurry, and/or not willing to find words that

better communicate what they are feeling.

[michaellinder]

<p>Bill: Thanks for this discussion. Perhaps your OP really is a philosophical question, falling within the realm of aesthetics. I must confess that I can't respond at the spur of the moment. However, I will follow with one of my images which was fun to shoot.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Brad, you might be right, that "<em>great</em>" has become a cliché, overused and emptied of its original strength, but you do not propose any alternative. If a photo is indeed "great" what would you call it ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>extraordinary, good, important, exceptional, extraordinaire, fantastic, frightful, grand, heavenly, howling, immoderate, impressive, incomparable, magnificent, marvellous, olympian, phenomenal, prodigious, rare, rattling, remarkable, singular, special, superior, surpassing, terrible, terrific, tremendous, uncanny, uncommon, uncomparable, unusual, wonderful, wonderworking, wondrous .... ????</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Personally, I kind of like "<em>olympian</em>", but English is not my first language, I must admit. Shooting "<strong>an</strong> <em><strong>olympian photo</strong></em>" seems like a challenge :))</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Brad, you might be right, that "great" has become a cliché, overused and emptied of its original

strength, but you do not propose any alternative. If a photo is indeed "great" what would you call it ?

 

Rather than suggest what words you or others should instead use, why not think a bit deeper when

reacting to a photograph (or anything for that matter) and come up with your own? It's personal...

[Member69643]

<p>During my Navy career I did a lot of travelling, and any chance I got, I visited some of the better zoos in the country. Over those years 1982-1988 I think I acquired 3 truly "great" zoo pics, and by that I only mean "Wow, I finally got a good picture!". :) Wolves were my favorite and my portfolio here showcases the one wolf pic I took in all those years that all the elements worked. The focus, the composition, the equipment, the steadiness of hand (or tripod, don't recall if I used one) all came together. And yet it's not a great picture. I like it, and it's great to me, within the context of the many many failed attempts, but it's not great.</p>

<p>Great is always defined by you. That's all that matters.</p>

[Brad_]

To try and answer the general question...

 

I react to and am inspired by photos that stir my imagination and curiosity. With respect to my own

photography, I try and make photographs that pose some questions rather than supply all of the answers,

hopefully having the ability to release narrative in a viewer's mind. That released viewer narrative may not

be what I had in mind at the moment of capture, or have anything to do with what was going on at the time,

but that's ok. Creating/amplifying ambiguity, intentionally withholding information through framing, having

an awareness of darkness/light, employing suggestive context (or restricting context), are some of the

things on my mind when making photographs.

[AJHingel]

<p>""come up with your own?""<br /> <br /> Brad, the subject is not to formulate "yours" or "my" what-ever about a photo. In all cases, hopefully after deep reflections, we do use <strong>words</strong> to clarify it all for ourselves and to communicate to others. Simple linguistic theory for beginners. "Great" might just be a great (sic!) term for what we want to say, especially if it is followed by a qualifier or two, as it was done by Bill and others above.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Great" might just be a great (sic!) term for what we want to say, especially if it is followed by a qualifier

or two.

 

Simple linguistic theory for beginners aside, if that word still has power and expressive meaning for you

personally, then it's the ideal choice (for you). For others it may have little meaning or power.

[jordan2240]

<p>Michael - I can certainly see why that photo would have been fun to take!</p>

<p>Anders - you speak (or at least write) English better than many of us native speakers.</p>

<p>We seem to be getting hung up somewhat on my choice of wording. I didn't mean to imply that everyone had pictures that would go down in history as all time classics, but most of us have something in our portfolios, or can point out examples from others, of what we consider to be stellar (is that another poor choice of wording) photographs for one reason or another. </p>

<p>Perhaps your idea of a great/marvelous/outstanding/Olympian shot is one that is technically perfect to your eyes, regardless of subject matter. Or perhaps technical aspects are less important, and you are more interested in the subject and the moment that was captured. Or maybe you require both. The idea behind the question was to get a sampling, simply out of curiosity, of what other netters viewed as photos that stood above the rest and why, particularly within their own portfolios. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> The idea behind the question was to get a sampling, simply out of

curiosity, of what other netters viewed as photos that stood above the rest and why, particularly within

their own portfolios.<P>

 

OK, here's a photograph I made a couple of days ago that for me speaks to some of the attributes I

mentioned above:

 

<center>

.<P>

<img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Saran%20Wrap.jpg"><BR>

<i>

San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014

</i>

<P>

.<P>

</center>

[AlanKlein]

<p>How about "<em>Look at this terrific shot I took</em>." A little ego, self confident but only casually self-centered. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Or how about, <em>"The Gods and my camera must have conspired to help me shoot this wonderful picture." </em>A little religiousity with ego is always more acceptable in mixed company.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>I especially like that 2nd one Alan.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>How about coming back to Bill's good invitation and show some of your "great photos" accompanied by some well chosen words on the why, they are so "great" for you ? </p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Bill - Indeed, my photograph proves that its subject was much better to view in three dimensions and in color.</p>