What makes a good photograph?

[q.g._de_bakker]

The same as the sound of two hands clapping, David? Never seen a photograph that was anything like that...

[david_smith110]

<p>Then I suggest you open your eyes and look around.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>A good photo, the money shot for the pro, the photo you want to print and hang on your wall or share with your friends for the amateur. The photo that brings a smile or other emotion, that photo that makes us think or tells a story for the photo journalist. As photographers, we try to learn the rules of composition, light and exposure, the science of photography, lenses, focus, depth of field, sharpness, bokeh. But we also break the rules too.</p>

<p>What helps make a good photo? An interesting subject, an interesting perspective, the simplest things sometimes play with light and shadow, color combinations that compliment and contrast. Probably one of the most important things is the artistic eye of a photographer seeing the shot to make or how to edit the shot in post production. Sometimes it is skill and talent, sometimes it is luck. There are formulas that can be followed and expensive cameras and lenses, but none of this will guarantee a good photo, there are many good photos taken with inexpensive cameras and photographers breaking the rules.</p>

<p>So what makes a good photo. The photo that makes a connection to the viewer that accomplishes an intended reaction or purpose.</p>

 

[erica_scourti]

<p> Thanks everyone for your responses, considering how broad and generic the question is, as Sally (“Might as well ask what makes a good book.”) and others pointed out; and as many others picked up, it ends up becoming a question of what do even mean by ‘good’, and whether is there any objective definition of good to work by, and so on. <br>

Also I found it interesting to see that for some people, the photo is deemed good, or successful, if they themselves liked it- “I have no audience, nor am I aiming my photos to one. A good photo is the one that satisfies me.” (Thomas K.) For others, it’s to do with the audience, or viewer response- “a good/effective photograph to me is one that stimulates an emotional reaction in the viewer” (Steve) or even “good photography pisses off all the right people.” (Lex) For others the two are inter-related- communication was mentioned a few times (Wouter, Arthur) which for me is very much about the photographers connection to their audience.</p>

<p>Like Wayne, I tend to think that, whatever their supposed ‘quality’ or formal attributes, some photos “are more important to some than any other photos in the world just because they exist as records.” But then this negates all the attention and care given by photographers to capture an image that matters to them, since the importance resides with the moment being captured, and the time/ people/ experiences it evokes- rather than it’s representation in a specific photograph.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Erica, just to understand a bit better: which direction would you see this going for the research/investigation you do?</p>

<p>I think that the notion "<em>are more important to some than any other photos in the world just because they exist as records</em>" is probably quite true for many, but in no way brings you closer to an answer to your question. I think the semantics of what "good" means brought out a good split: "good" as in personal preference, "good" as in ranking high against the medium standard, "good" as fit to purpose (with a clearly defined purpose, else everything is). Your notion is just "good" in the sense of a personal preference. Might be enough, but was that really what was meant?<br />And the "existing to be a record" is a tricky one too; because it means you do not like the photo because of its quality as a photo, but rather of whatever it is an image of. Does that make it a good photo, or a good subject?<br>

<br />And following that reasoning, is there such thing as a bad photo, and what makes it a bad photo then? There are technically highly incompetent photos of subjects not worth mentioning with compositions that were a mere afterthought, if at all, and yet.... they work, somehow, in a quirky way, they work. Along all lines, they ought to be bad, but for somebody, it may just be that one photo that matters. Is it a good photo, or do some people just have a weird taste?</p>

<p>There are more people favouring the Ansel Adams' landscapes, Brassaï's photos, Anne Geddes' babies or Avedon's portaits, rather than, say, yours or mine. Is that just sheep following the herd? Or is it fair to say that these photos have something that makes them good to a lot of people, and hence "more generically considered good"? I don't think there is a solid and clear-cut answer, but if I'd be looking at what makes good photos, I'd be looking at those which draw an audience for a considerable while - and see what they've got in common, in one way or another.<br>

But (and hence I asked), it depends on where you'd want to take your investigation.</p>

[erica_scourti]

<p> Thanks everyone for your responses, considering how broad and generic the question is, as Sally (“Might as well ask what makes a good book.”) and others pointed out; and as many others picked up, it ends up becoming a question of what do even mean by ‘good’, and whether is there any objective definition of good to work by, and so on. <br>

Also I found it interesting to see that for some people, the photo is deemed good, or successful, if they themselves liked it- “I have no audience, nor am I aiming my photos to one. A good photo is the one that satisfies me.” (Thomas K.) For others, it’s to do with the audience, or viewer response- “a good/effective photograph to me is one that stimulates an emotional reaction in the viewer” (Steve) or even “good photography pisses off all the right people.” (Lex) For others the two are inter-related- communication was mentioned a few times (Wouter, Arthur) which for me is very much about the photographers connection to their audience.</p>

<p>Like Wayne, I tend to think that, whatever their supposed ‘quality’ or formal attributes, some photos “are more important to some than any other photos in the world just because they exist as records.” But then this negates all the attention and care given by photographers to capture an image that matters to them, since the importance resides with the moment being captured, and the time/ people/ experiences it evokes- rather than it’s representation in a specific photograph.</p>

[erica_scourti]

<p>I agree in that there is no clear-cut answer- and actually there is not really clear-cut question, since as everyone's responses attest to, it very much depends on what is meant by 'good' in the first place (which the people who asked me to write the article also did not specify...)</p>

<p>What I'm interested in on a personal level is 'what matters'- which is what I ask myself whenever I set out to make something. Does this matter, in some way- to me, to the world? While staying aware, of course, that what matters to me may not matter to anyone else...but still, I would at least hope it does.</p>

<p>Beyond that, I suppose I value any direction the answers and investigation take- I don't have a outcome I am pursuing- or perhaps the debate itself is the outcome, rather than any specific answers.</p>

<p>As for your question of whether people are following the herd in their favouring...I would say yes, not because we are sheep necessarily but because images which are famous, well-loved and known have a power quite regardless of their intrinsic value or formal qualities as images; in fact it's almost impossible to differentiate or to say whether they are loved 'as' images or as as images that are already loved by everyone else (which also happens with famous paintings). Part of their value is the fact that they are widely known and referenced, which creates a circular argument of sorts- but I wouldn't necessarily say it was about them being 'better' photos.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>A good photograph is one which fulfils its intended purpose. Period. Everything else is secondary (by a very long way).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, what happens if someone makes a photo that fulfills its purpose but it's a completely uninteresting or exploitive or offensive photo. Not necessarily good, in my book, even though I think there are some offensive photos that are good. Just look at the Nudes section on PN, where the often puerile intentions are being fulfilled, and the results are nauseating, exploitive, or juvenile. Is that good?</p>

<p>I think intentions often have to be separated from results. The road to hell and all that. The best of intentions likely go into many photos of downtrodden people on the street. The results, however, are often superficial and exploitive. </p>

<p>I think expertise plays a role in assessing what's good. I'd rather hear what a group of cinematographers consider good cinematography than a group of ordinary movie-goers. I'd give some extra credence to what a group of photographers I respect think makes a good photo. I'd take the recommendation for a good surgeon from 100 surgeons over 100 lay patients. (I'm not a big fan of YELP.)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

A photo, or book, or anything trying to convey boredom by depicting boredom so emminently that it makes the viewer, or reader, or whatever feel extremely bored is hard to dismiss as not good. If the goal is to be boring, a boring picture is rather good.<br>When you are looking for more than there is, the shortcomings are not real. It's the expectation, or longing, that is not quite 'good'. When purile intentions (!) are being fulfilled, you perhaps should not be expecting something that isn't purile?<br><br>I of course agree that the results aren't always a match for the intentions. After all, not everything is good.<br><br>If expertise is needed to recognize whether something is good, unless that is exactly the intention (for instance if it is meant to be a test or a riddle), the thing fails, is as useful, as good as a light hidden inside a hermetically sealed black box.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The thing that's good about good, IMO, is that when someone doesn't recognize a thing's goodness, I can often comfortably say they are wrong. I never call someone's taste wrong, but I am content to call someone's judgment of something wrong. If someone thinks the surgeon who botched 50 out of 100 operations is a good surgeon, they're wrong. If someone makes a boring picture, even though they want it to be so, if I think it's a bad picture, I'll gladly say so. I use many other criteria besides intention to judge photos good or bad, different criteria at different times.</p>

<p>As for looking for more than there is . . . Yes! When looking at photos (and art), I generally look for more than there is. And, when it comes to expertise, when a loved one of yours needs that good surgeon, I hope they'll take my advice rather than yours.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

How can a picture meant to be boring be a bad picture, because it is boring? You're not judging the picture there, but are saying that you do not find boredom/being bored by looking at the picture very appealing. And you are right: it isn't.<br>Just as not everything is good, not everything is easy either. Despite my last paragraph (rather definite that was) it may be that we need to know or recognize the thing that makes something good before we can recognize it as such.<br>I wouldn't call what is lacking "expertise", because that suggests some higher order thing. It's information. If we are to judge a thing by how it fulfills its intended purpose, and it isn't immediately obvious what that is, we may need to be told.<br>If you see a boring pictures, and call it bad because of being boring, and i tell you it is meant to give you the feeling of having looked at a boring picture, you can recognize how well it succeeded in what it was supposed to do. It's nothing special: we often need some help to understand things.<br><br>Now that surgeon thing: i never implied or said that a bad surgeon is a good thing, if and when you need a good surgeon (and we usually do). The implication that, because we usually do need a good surgeon, a bad surgeon would always be a bad thing is fallacious. If and when (for whatever purpose) a bad surgeon would be needed, a good surgeon would be a bad thing, a bad surgeon would be perfect. It is a rather simplistic thingy (both versions, your and mine): if we suppose we need X and not not-X, we need X and not not-X. The error is in assuming that we always need X and never not-X. The error is in assuming that pictures may never be, say (as it is the example used), boring.<br>I hope that someone who needs a bad surgeon (and it's another matter what a bad surgeon would be, or whether a good surgeon could also be a bad one, by adjusting his quality to match the task presented to him) would indeed go looking for a bad surgeon.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>One objection I have to restricting a good photo to one that fulfills the intentions of the photographer is that there are many good anonymous photos. There is certainly a long history of good paintings whose authors remain unknown. We judge these artworks good despite the fact that we don't and in many cases can't know the intentions behind them.</p>

<p>Another objection I have to restricting a good photo to one that fulfills the intentions of the photographer is that many good photos come about with accidents and surprises being the best thing about them. Imagine my going out with the intention of shooting a sad photo. As I trip the shutter, without even seeing it or knowing it, something significant and comical happens in the background which makes the photo anything but sad. I only discover it later when I get it back from the lab. It would be ludicrous for me to deny the photo's being good because the comedy was not what I intended. How much credit I take for it might be in question (though I give credit to the photographer for being there for the accident), but whether the photo is good should not be denied because it didn't fulfill the photographer's intentions.</p>

<p>I'm a firm believer in the connection between photo and photographer and all that means. The more info I have about a photographer, the deeper my experience of his or her photos may be. But, I'm also a believer in the artwork being separate from the artist and being able to be judged good or bad without such knowledge. Any photo or painting can be taken at face value alone.</p>

<p>The intentions of most photographers I know are not always that clearcut or scientifically determinable. Many of my own intentions can be quite specific when it comes to certain of my photos. Many are much less so. I'm not always terribly in touch with what I want and am more winging it, leaving some things to chance, some to instinct, some to past experience. In addition to intention, I allow for such instincts, for my history, my cultural proclivities, for accident, misunderstanding myself, even anger and sadness and especially my subconscious all to influence me to some degree. If I don't fully understand or know my own or another's intentions, that would mean I could never assess whether my own work or their work (paintings, photos, sculptures, dances) was good or not. That, IMO, is not an acceptable approach to what's good in art.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>“I have no audience, nor am I aiming my photos to one. A good photo is the one that satisfies me.” (Thomas K.) For others, it’s to do with the audience, or viewer response- “a good/effective photograph to me is one that stimulates an emotional reaction in the viewer”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The photographer can be his own audience. After all, when you look at pictures that you shot of your family, don;t you feel love all over again? The point is that when the photo elicits a reaction in the viewer, whoever that might be, that's a good picture. </p>

<p>On the other hand, some people may consider "good" as having to do with the technical aspects: focus, DOF, composition, BW or color, etc. Technical aspects can be good but the photo is not because it elicits little or no responce from the audience, The opposite could be valid as well where the photo plucks at your heartstrings, but the picture stinks from a technical standpoint.</p>

<p>So which good are you referring too?</p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

But, Fred, now you are assuming that intentions always have to be that extra bit of information you need to be told. If you look at a photograph, it may be that it is not what you think it might be. But since a good photograph is one that does what it supposed to do, chances are that it is not, that it will grab you the way it is intended to.<br><br>Accidents. Yes, they happen. But are hardly ever entirely accidental. More coincidental. A photographer may stumble upon a photo opportunity he wasn't looking for and that isn't not in line with what he set out to do. But how is it that he came in the circumstances in which the shot presented itself, and (more importantly) why did he recognize it as a photo opportunity and did not ignore it as one of many other things he wasn't interested in?<br>And when indeed as accidental as your example, of not even knowing what you were taking a picture of until you saw the result: what has that got to do with being a good photograph? Why is it ludicrous to deny that the photo is good? A funny and lucky one, yes. But - as the firm believer in the connection between photo and photographer you say you are - how, would you say, is it good?<br><br>As far as an artwork (or work of art) being separate from the artist and being able to be taken at face value is concerned: it indeed is, if it is a good one. It does what it is supposed to do, without needing (much) help. A photo that needs a full explanation of what we are supposed to see because it doesn't show any of it itself is a perfect example of what is not a good photo.<br>And what, or rather who, made its 'face' such that it speaks for itself? The face value of a work is the intent of the artist put in material. When it is a good work, that is.<br><br>Then the thing about how conscious you go about creating things. It doesn't matter much. What matters is that other people, the audience, recognize what you are doing, even if you are less aware of it yourself than they might be. You mention instincts; how could we even talk about instincts if we did not recognize that living beings sometimes act instinctively while we have an understanding of what these instincts may be, what their 'intent' is, though the instinct driven being has not? Moreover, not fully understanding your own intentions is not the same as not having intentions, nor does it mean that noone else can see what they are either. In short: it does not get in the way of what makes a photo a good photo.

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>And when indeed as accidental as your example, of not even knowing what you were taking a picture of until you saw the result: what has that got to do with being a good photograph? Why is it ludicrous to deny that the photo is good? A funny and lucky one, yes. But - as the firm believer in the connection between photo and photographer you say you are - how, would you say, is it good?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because, as I've also said, photos exist as separate and separable entities from the photographer as well. I think a camera placed in the city square which takes pictures randomly can take a good picture. I can say it's good because I've been arguing for good not being limited to the fulfillment of intentions, so the photo itself would have characteristics/qualities that would make it good. Not absolute ones. They would be dependent on who was looking and in what context.</p>

<p>I'm not diminishing the importance of fulfilling one's goals or intentions. That may, indeed, be good. But it's a good to the photographer. A good photo is something different from what may be a good in terms of the photographer's will and fulfillment of that will. In other words, what's good for the photographer isn't always good for the photo. Fulfilling goals is, on the whole, good (unless your goal is to kill someone without justification, of course, so there are limits even to the good of goal fulfillment) for those who set the goals or who wish the person to achieve his goals. A good photo, on the other hand, has characteristics separate from the person who made it. Just like I am an individual who has relationships, with my parents, children, siblings, spouse, I am also an individual quite on my own and would like to be treated as such, even as you recognize the influence of those to whom I'm related. A photo deserves the same consideration.</p>

<p>My artistic appreciation incorporates both seeing the photo as a product of the photographer and seeing the photo as an entity separate from the photographer. Somewhere in that dialogue is my full experience of the photo, and I don't limit my judgments of photos to one or the other sphere.<br /> <br /> __________________________________________________<br /> <br /> I think I'll leave it here. We're starting to go round in circles. Point is, we've looked at the situation from a lot of different angles and there's lots of food for thought. You're not convincing me and I sense I'm not convincing you, which may not even be the point. Fleshing out these things helps in our creative pursuits and getting different perspectives widens our scope.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>David, what happens if someone makes a photo that fulfils its purpose but it's a completely uninteresting or exploitive or offensive photo.</em><br>

Fred, I think the principle holds up. Millions of people are posting personal pictures on social media of themselves and friends pulling faces into the camera [phone] while drunk. To any third party not involved in the original bacchanalia, such pictures are totally tedious, but the authors are apparently delighted with them and find them good. There are no absolutes - I can't imagine a single picture that everyone in the world would think is good.<br>

Nor do I find work by anonymous photographers a problem. It is an intrinsic ability of photography to communicate the mood of an event to viewers who were not there - it's what professionals do all the time. Of course, in cases where an intention is not absolutely clear cut, viewers may well arrive at their own interpretations. Which brings us round in a circle - an art photographer's intention may well be for viewers to make their own interpretation of his/her work.<br>

<em>I think intentions often have to be separated from results.</em><br>

I would flip this around (and in the process emphasise that my statement includes the word "fulfils"). In many cases, lack of skill or simply bad luck mean that a picture does not convey the intended message, in many other cases, as I said before, contemporary artists are very apt to deliberately create work which asks questions but does not provide unambiguous (or indeed any) answers, but simply says "I found this interesting, but I choose not to say (or do not know) why and am just laying the image before you to make of what you will". In these cases, the good/bad verdict is a completely personal one on the part of each viewer.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred, I think the principle holds up. Millions of people are posting personal pictures on social media of themselves and friends pulling faces into the camera [phone] while drunk. To any third party not involved in the original bacchanalia, such pictures are totally tedious, but the authors are apparently delighted with them and find them good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the principle, David, is that a photo is good if it fulfills its intention, then why wouldn't the third party find it good? The third party presumably knows it fulfills the intentions of the drunk that took it, yet that third party may well recognize what a bad photo it is. Your allowance for a third party not to find good this photo which fulfills the photographer's intention means that there are obviously other criteria people use to determine whether or not a photo is good or not. I completely understand you when you say the drunk folks involved would find it good. But that's just them. If no one else does, there are reasons they don't. And those reasons have to do with other things besides the fulfillment of the photographer's intentions. And those reasons are just as valid as the reasons of the drunk folks. That's why there's healthy disagreement about what's good, as you say, and why there will never be universal agreement on this or that photo being good. Because there are no absolutes, such as goal fulfillment being the absolute determiner of goodness. It would be different if there were disagreement as to whether the drunk's photo fulfilled the intentions. That would account for some people thinking it's good and some not. But under your quite singular criterion of goodness, if there is agreement about fulfillment of intention, there should be agreement about goodness. Or maybe the third party is in the wrong. The third party doesn't know he should think the photo is good, for the reasons you've given. Try convincing the third party, or me, for that matter, of that! :-)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Well Fred, you are separating what a photo 'does' (fulfill its purpose, for instance by leaving you feeling annoyed) and how you happen to like that. That is, of course, perfectly fine. The question though is where in this the photo ends and where you begin: is it a good photo you find boring, or is it a boring photo and it, for that reason, cannot be good?<br>Photos taken by traffic cams are supposed to catch cars running red lights. A good traffic cam photo is one that does. But you and i may see something else in it too, and appreciate it for that. We are then projecting our own intentions, that probably aren't the same as those of the people who invented the traffic camera, those of who bought and put these things up, etc.<br>If we expect photos to fulfill our own intentions, not that of the maker, we can find something good about it, "separate [...] from the photographer". But it is still fulfilling intentions.<br><br>Is it then really a good photo?<br>If i design a piece of furniture, say a small chest of drawers, and people happen to think it makes a very good chair, better than most of their other chairs, what does that mean? It can still be a good chest of drawers. It can also be a good chair, even though it was not my intention, but that of the people using it that way.<br>If i design another bit of furniture, and noone even sees what it is supposed to be, nor does anyone like it as a thing that has no function but being there and be seen (i.e. they can't find a way to project some sort of purpose in/on the thing), it can still fulfill my intentions (if that is what i wanted it to be, it is perfect), but not anyone else's.<br>In short: it is in the eye of the beholder. If we don't get it, we don't get it and the photo is not good. If we find something else to like in it, distinct and separate from the maker's intentions, it can be both a good and a bad photo. If we are not pleased by what the photo does, it probably is indeed a good photo. Unless we are not pleased because we recognize both the intent and how the photo falls short of fulfilling it. Unless (and that's what makes this such an interesting thing) that was exactly the intention to begin with: leaving us with the impression that it is a photo failing to fulfill it's intentions. Etcetera.<br>It becomes a problematic question when we start applying some external rules, such as 'it must always leave me feeling good about the world' or 'it must conform with my standards of beauty', or 'it must leave me feeling i got a glimps of some more exalted world'.

[chris_waller]

<p>A good photograph is the one which corresponds to the image I saw in my mind. I do not even think of an audience when I take a photograph, I think only of what I am trying to achieve. Equipment is not important beyond its ability to allow me to produce the photograph I want. Technique (skill) is likewise only important insofar as it contributes to the final print. Subject matter is of prime importance. The questions I ask myself are: What do I want to photograph? Why? What do I want to say about the subject? How will I say it photographically?</p>

[charleswood]

<p>What makes a good photograph? An artist makes a good photograph.</p>

<p>Alfredo Jaar:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. Artists are human beings, and every human being has responsibilities. Artists are an integral part of society, and within society we are very privileged because artists have been blessed with time and resources to think, to speculate, to dream about different worlds, better worlds. This privilege comes with a responsibility, to respond to what surrounds us, and to suggest models of thinking about society and about the world, and that’s what the best art does. The best works of art take you to places you have never been – I’m referring to mental places -places where we create new models of thinking, and new possible ways of seeing the world. And that’s a tremendous responsibility.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The rest are just photographs and who cares if they are good or not, all being the same, just photographs, most the products of minds whose occupants refuse to embrace what really surrounds them, that which though always allusive, we recognize and want.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.laurenstrohacker.org/#/tca/">http://www.laurenstrohacker.org/#/tca/</a></p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

That's blowing things out of proportion in an disproportionate way, Charles.<br>It is not a tremendous responsibility at all. It is also something we can't help doing. Everyone one of us. It is often called "(day) dreaming", and leads to great amounts of rubbish as well as some good stuff.<br>Furthermore, it does not provide much of a clou to what makes a photograph a good one, apart from asserting that if it is made by an artist, it is. Which is of course not so. An artist is someone trying to use a medium to share something, and idea, a feeling, something other people can recognize and respond to. It's not a privilege, but something we all do. Not all equally weel. And not all do it professionally/exclusively. It may be a privilege to be able to do nothing else. But it bears very little (no) relation to what the end product qualifies as: art, good or inconsequential rubbish.

[andrew_gardiner]

<p>In his recent review of a photobook for publisher Hatje Cantz's blog, Jeffery Ladd laid down his base criteria for photography:</p>

<p>" <strong>A photograph should be more interesting than the subject and transcend its obviousness"</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>You can read the full article here:<br>

http://cphmag.com/</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Andrew I like that quote.</p>

<p>Q.G., I'm approaching the problem by narrowing the scope, which narrowing I agree doesn't get us any closer to an answer. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> What makes a good photograph? An artist makes a good photograph.

 

I've seen *many* poor photographs made by photographers claiming to be artists.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There's the rub. The quote didn't say, "Anyone claiming to be an artist makes a good photograph." The quote said "An artist makes a good photograph." While I also don't agree with this quote, I find it important to remember that artists are a different subset from those claiming to be artists. The claim to be an artist does not an artist make. For me, an artist is someone who makes art and it also is or can be a lifestyle. I've heard many people claim to be artists who aren't.</p>

<p>________________________________________</p>

<p>Charles, like you, I find the idea of the relationship between art/photography and responsibility an interesting one.</p>