Question! What makes a good photograph?

Quote:

---

Perhaps I would change imperfection by execution ...

---

Excellent suggestion Antonio. I much prefer that. Consider it done. So mine was nearly the right answer;)

Quote:

---

"Art is not to be taught in Academies. It is what one looks at, not what one listens to, that makes the artist. The real schools should be the streets."

"I dislike modern memoirs. They are generally written by people who have either entirely lost their memories, or have never done anything worth remembering."

---

Now we are getting to it. I take it old Oscar wasn't a Guardian reader then:) There is evidence here that he may have had a Pirelli calendar nailed to the back of his bathroom door though...er no that can't be right can it? But I fear the first is only part of the answer and slightly flawed in its application to photography. The second is relevant as a statement of preference but there must be few instances where photographic memoirs asre presented as art.

Quote:

---

Well, I have sent one offspring 60 quid tonight and my wife put 50 quid in another's fuel tank - well it's a start!

Dogs and wife in bed, cat got some milk though ;)

---

Dave, you are forgiven my son. Now its Friday today. Get into your old comfy jeans, don your Rolling Stones t-shirt. roll up at 9:30 (due to traffic) and arrange a fictitious dental appointment for 2:30. There, simple but effective application of the great British work ethic:rolleyes:

To me, a great photograph is one that tells a great story (what ever the story may be).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katy Noelle

Seeing something the way it hasn't been seen before, capturing a moment, or two, that is fleeting, The ability to shock someone into a second glance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplehaze

an image that isolates the thing that you saw with your mind's eye that you thought was worth saving in a photograph.

---

If I apply fresh thought to it, Katy's Cynthia quote and Janis's view are how, when I make an effort, I try to take an interesting photograph - I don't presume any (of mine) even approach 'great'.

In essence, show the viewer (which maybe yourself) something they are interested in - but in a way they haven't seen it before, so;
- a moment in time frozen (high speed of fleeting event),
- a coincidence captured (a photogenic composition of an impressive cloud formation in exactly the right place),
- or some beautiful/interesting detail of an everyday object (typically macro).

Of those, macro is the most easily accessible to many, unless retired, so that's my leaning.

Then of course you have to get it technically good too :)

Okay, I haven't figured out how to respond to quotes and go between pages, yet. (Unless I go the looooong way around.) So, I'll just say it this way.....

Janis, I'm with you!!!

Sorry, Steve and Dave! Wow, I threw this out at quite the moment.... :D

Kay, are we talking "string theory", then???

Rob and Steve, I was thinking that there's a goal that is emotional and the technical is the aid to tell it clearly. I really like your slants on that thought. I mean, thanks! Fresh way to think!

I think the biggest thing that was coming to mind is that story thing, put together with Dave's last comment. There should be a story, even if it's a minimalist story about an angle and colors or eggs. :D or texture or..... Anyway, all of a sudden, I'm remembering something that I read in a book about this (I have to go reread it). He was talking about Universal themes speaking the loudest to the most people. laughter and joy, tears, stress, anger, fear - can we get those into inanimate objects? He compared photos to movies. When we ask someone what a movie was about, we often get the plot and characters - what happened and what they did. Sets, costume, music, colors, frame, etc. aid the story. BUT, what is the story in a nutshell? Was it a young man coming to terms with his fear of the unknown - insecurity? A woman finding love - loneliness? Are these the universal themes and all the rest is the plot and how the story was told. Eeeek! I'm twaddling on! :eek: The technical aspect would be how clearly/effectively the story was told.

Then, is it possible for the angle of a window to speak to someone in a tribe in Africa? (er, friendly question!) Does it matter if it speaks to them? Actually, I bet it is possible! How universally can photos of my home speak? ;) If I make a photo that's really, really good from around my home, would it speak across lines? Maybe, if there's a child in it - do you know what I mean? It would have to be technically excellent or it will be probably mushy/unclear speak.

Now, HOW in the world do I apply all of what you're saying and I'm thinking????????? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Well, I'm not tied in knots. Just thinking..... I'm going to go take a photograph of my coffee mug, now, and see if it speaks. Actually, I bet a pic of my mountain of laundry would bring a response! I'm not sure what kind......

P.S. I'd better make sure that you don't think that I'm saying that universal appeal is what makes a good photo! I'm really not trying to say that.

Let me add one additional comment please... For some people, a good photograph is one in which there is a recognizeable image of someone whom they care about...

My mother could look at the most artistic and technically perfect image in the world, and then yawn and wonder why the photographer ever bothered to shoot the image since there was no one she cared about in the photo. However if somewhere in the image, there was a barely recognizeable image of someone she cared about, even it that image was fuzzy, badly exposed and terribly composed, it was a wonderful shot! She had shoe boxes full of terrible pictures which were like hoarded gold to her. She never looked at them, but could never bring herself to dispose of them.

Along the same lines, I had a discussion regarding photography with my Chinese tour guide during my recent trip to China. He mentioned that "Americans shoot pictures of things that Chinese would never care about. Chinese always have someone that they know in their picture." From my general observation of photographers in China, this was basically true. I didn't notice many photographers shooting images of the Great Wall, The Forbidden City or other interesting and photogenic sites without someone in their party posing...

The other interesting aspect that's starting to emerge from the discussion is the role and importance (or not) of culture.

Like all art forms, what a peron from one culure consider a 'good' image may differ significantly from what a person of another culture might think. Other examples are in music and theatre - some cultures practice these forms of art in such a way that is incomprehensible to me. I might appreciate the artistic skill involved. but it doesn't mean anything to me, because I don't understand it (or you could turn that last bit around - don't understand it, so it has no meaning).

So, I've got to be able to relate the image to my known universe in order to be able to understand it and, in turn, to take some meaning from it.

Katy - I enter this discussion with considerable hesitation. I have read all the replies with great interest, but I suggest that the question you ask has no definite answer, and it is impossible to ever find a definitive answer. The matter as what comprises a "good" image (photograph in this case) has been debated from the Renaissance with in France, the UK and other countries societies set up (UK Royal Academy by Sir Joshua Reynolds) to pronounce upon these things. And pronounce they did, much to the chagrin of many fine artists and their very fine art. In the 1930's and then from the 1950's (after the Second World War) the art establishment realised that the wrong question was being asked. There could be no definite let alone definitive answer the questions such as "What makes a good image (photograph)?" "Good" is such a vague term, as are words such as "like", "beauty", etc. No two "experts" could agree.

The impasse was broken by, amongst others, a young art historian called Ernest Gombrich who put forward the view that works of art (photographs included) should be assessed, judged, valued (whatever) by their function. Gombrich ask the question, "What is this work of art for?, What purpose does it serve? Why has the artist made this?" He wrote a book called "The Story of Art", first published in 1950 and still available today in goodness know what edition. (Google on Amazon and you'll find it.) Even today, a decade after Gombrich's death, this is considered a seminal book for people wishing to understand art. You should get a copy and read it from the point of view of a photographer - it will change your way of thinking.

How does this help in assessing photographs and in what makes a "good" photograph? In some ways the answer is very simple. A "good" work of art or photograph is one that exactly fits its purpose. Gone are the arguments about whether one feature or another are good, bad or ugly. If the photo fits the bill then it's "good".

I have a collection of several thousand photographs that I took as part of my career as an independent expert witness for Courts in the UK, work based on whether people had been harmfully exposed to chemicals. Although you and many of our fellow members would think my photographs pretty poor from a modern standpoint (technically with film, sharpness is a problem; technically focus is a problem if your crawling through a double-bottom in a ship being built in a dockyard; and so on) yet many of my photographs are good from the Gombrich perspective because they exactly fit their purpose, namely to show to a judge and others in Court what a piece of machinery looked like, what an extraction system did and so on.

Now coming back to your question, you should really be asking of a photograph that you are assessing, "What is the purpose of this and does the image fulfil that purpose?" If it does, it is a good photograph. However, I don't think this is really what you are after. I think you are after the answer to a different question - "What makes one photograph stand out above others?" Many of the answers given are actually addressing that question, not the original. From the Gombrich view, the image or photograph that stands above the others is the one that transcends its original purpose and offers a greater insight, either to the original subject or a related one, than intended. Now some artists and some photographers have that ability, to add value, so to speak, to the original purpose.

Many of the answers above show what people consider added value. I note particularly Richard's comments, especially about the Chinese, on these matters -very perceptive. The other view that comes nearest to that of Gombrich is from Steve, Wirefox, who had the idea of a "good" photograph transcending its technical aspects. Substitute purpose for technicalities and you have the Gombrich idea.

Let me finish with an example from your work posted here - the photographs of the trees across the lake, with the colours and composition. Why did you take those shots? What was the purpose behind that work? There could be dozens of answers (only you would know which one or several would be relevant.) Did the shots fulfil that purpose? If so, then they are good shots. Do they have added value? - if not the shots are good but not great.

These are deep waters, and many art historians and others still argue that black is white over this issue. However, I'm a great believer that photographers can learn a great deal from studying images from the other arts, painting and sculpture and architecture. Many of the problems that confront photographers also confronted artists such as Rembrandt, Vermeer Rubens - the Great Masters. They solved the problems - photographers can learn from their works.

Thank you for your attention

David

Hi, David! I've just popped on, here, during my lunch break. I've been thinking along the same lines but don't trust myself to use my words correctly to reply. The thing is, though, it's such a big question because it's not concrete and different for each person, eh? That means that everyone's input is worthwhile!

I've been rolling my eyes at myself a bit. This is soooooooo philosophical! :rolleyes: I am wondering, though, (what makes a good photo) because, just in the fact that I'm here in this forum means that I want to improve and make better photos and I thought it'd be helpful to see what other's think this means. Not so much "are we all on the same page" but more like, "what page are you on?" ;)

Quote:

---

The impasse was broken by, amongst others, a young art historian called Ernest Gombrich who put forward the view that works of art (photographs included) should be assessed, judged, valued (whatever) by their function. Gombrich ask the question, "What is this work of art for?, What purpose does it serve? Why has the artist made this?" He wrote a book called "The Story of Art", first published in 1950 and still available today in goodness know what edition. (Google on Amazon and you'll find it.) Even today, a decade after Gombrich's death, this is considered a seminal book for people wishing to understand art. You should get a copy and read it from the point of view of a photographer - it will change your way of thinking.

---

Sounds great! I'll look for it! BTW, the question has, also, been asked, "is photography art?" Well, if classical music is art (and the general consensus is that it is) then, this seems the same. Art = communication, skill, talent, practice, technical merit - the whole thing. I keep thinking, "I remember this from voice lessons and college!" I think I've been on this road before - it all looks really familiar! :eek: or:) or:rolleyes: - I can't decide! The encouraging thing about that is, when I started studying voice, I had a lot that I wanted to share inside of me but not the technical skill to express it. I kept practicing and practicing - there were some dark hours but I really love singing so I kept going. Lo and behold, 20 years later, I'm really pretty good ;) - I can do most things that I want to with my instrument. So, let's see, that means that when I'm in my 60s, I'll be rockin' with my camera.

Katy - Read Gombrich - art isn't what you think it is.

David

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David

Katy - Read Gombrich - art isn't what you think it is.

David

---

Okay! :)

Oh, I've just seen other's comments, too. I'm sure appreciating them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donald

The other interesting aspect that's starting to emerge from the discussion is the role and importance (or not) of culture. Like all art forms, what a person from one culture consider a 'good' image may differ significantly from what a person of another culture might think. Other examples are in music and theater - some cultures practice these forms of art in such a way that is incomprehensible to me. I might appreciate the artistic skill involved. but it doesn't mean anything to me, because I don't understand it (or you could turn that last bit around - don't understand it, so it has no meaning). So, I've got to be able to relate the image to my known universe in order to be able to understand it and, in turn, to take some meaning from it.

---

Great point Donald. You are talking about Art in a social context, right ?
I have thought of that before but I am too afraid of my English.
But let me try to give my two cents like Americans say, introducing another point here.

The other day in our small and exiguous group of amateur photographers - 8 to 10 people - one of us - let's call him Paul - showed a self portrait of Andy Warrol in a news paper magazine which had been sold for a huge amount of money.
Then he - he is doing a course of photography in Lisbon where they are supposed to "build" artists - asked us if that was Art.
In fact, I don't know if he was referring to Art with capital or just art. I told him no, that the value of the picture was just from who shot it. It was a mere self portrait which I dared to say I could do it myself which was considered as a sacrilege with a mocking smile. These ideas make me smile.
They are indeed very narrow minded in my point of view.

Later, I was surfing and I found images of horses and dogs. Oh yes, I remember now that the link was here somewhere. Doesn't matter now where it was but the images were strikingly beautiful and pleasant to look at. Gorgeous if I may say. I can even consider them as Art.
I wouldn't know how to shoot them opposed of the Andy's one.
At this point I don't know Paul's opinion about those shots.

Sometimes Art is good if it is done by that person in particular. If it was Antonio's picture it would be a disaster, a nil.
This is also a point to consider: whom Art is it, who did it. To be Art it must also be recognized by the "right" people. I have seen disasters from well known Architects and Photographers recognized as great works because they are accepted by the critics.
Was I confusing ?:o

I just do photographs. I would like to create an emotional response. Strange thing happened today, every photograph I did failed, it has never happened before.
It takes me back to the insecurity of film where you just get everything wrong.

I don't see anybody else saying they make mistakes here though, see ya.

Quote:

---

Read Gombrich - art isn't what you think it is.

---

Quote:

---

To be Art it must also be recognized by the "right" people.

---

Au contraire, art is what ever you want it to be;)

This is a point I have tried to get across before. Art is not a definition prescribed by the middle class elite. They are not qualified or educated in way that allows free thought. They are educated to perpetuate social order and fiscal dominance. Free and/or abstract thought can not be allowed to roam free in such a regime. Art is an area of threat, that is why it is not traditionally taught in English public schools. These schools exist to nurture the ruling classes and ensure conservative social order. Yet, most art 'critics' are are educated and influenced by this elite. This ensures that art from free thinkers cannot influence social order.

The good news is that in the UK (at least) this ancient order can co-exist with the free thinkers. And, on the whole, it has worked well.

Art is like truth. It is whatever we believe it to be. Some of us will require to be told what we should think (both truth and art).

Quote:

---

Was I confusing ?:o

---

Antonio, you are never confusing. The definition of confusion would be me trying to to get that across in Portugese:o

I can see that pop culture produces anomalies that will cock a snook at both the free thinkers and the 'cultured' art world. It has overwhelming popularity because sometimes we just want to be shallow and not bother to really think about things too much...like pop music. I still see convicted prog rock dinosaurs tapping a toe to Kylie. They take themselves very seriously but at the end of the day we have to lighten up sometime. So Warhol and many others represent a vees up to sensibility. I personally think that is a good thing. The fact that it is popular because who has taken the shot (or who the shot is of for that matter) does not make it art...it makes it popular. So, I would have had the same reaction if asked the same question.

I was challenged in another thread when I said that commercial art is not true art. I still hold with that, commercial art is popular media. Even then we are at risk of believing it is so because we are told it is so:confused:

So back to the long suffering Katy's question. What makes a good photo? Well it is everything (and I mean everything) discussed here and much more. It may be better to ask what makes a popular photo. But I can say one thing with absolute certainty. If you, yourself, think it is a good photo...then all is well...it is a good photo:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arith

Strange thing happened today, every photograph I did failed, it has never happened before.
It takes me back to the insecurity of film where you just get everything wrong.

I don't see anybody else saying they make mistakes here though, see ya.

---

Well for what it's worth, I make mistakes all the time.

Just last night I wasted a couple of hours doing a series of shots (including a 20 minute and 30 minute exposure) that just didn't work out; my mistake was misinterpreting the conditions and how they would look once recorded. I thought the cloud might add some colour and some texture of interest, but the photo (despite my best PP attempts) is just plain BORING. And to add insult to injury, I've also got over 150 dust spots to clean off the sensor sometime soon.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...5&d=1287780991

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Well for what it's worth, I make mistakes all the time.

---

Pah! I can do better than that - I only ever make mistakes...:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

And to add insult to injury, I've also got over 150 dust spots to clean off the sensor sometime soon.

---

Pan scourers work a treat...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wirefox

Art is not a definition prescribed by the middle class elite. They are not qualified or educated in way that allows free thought. They are educated to perpetuate social order and fiscal dominance.

---

Thought you said you weren't political ... comrade!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arith

...I don't see anybody else saying they make mistakes here though, see ya.

---

Excuse me Steve but you missed one - if not many - pictures of mines which are a disaster.
I posted it somewhere and so did Colin. I can remember he posted a night scenario with flash. And I posted... yes !! I remember now!! It is in the nSCP and it is a guy behind green bars which he is painting. Too lazy to search for it. :o
Still these are also a complete nonsense.

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...caca0b42_m.jpg http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...4235ec30_m.jpg

-
@ Katy, if you wish I can erase the pictures. Just let me know please :)

Quote:

---

Thought you said you weren't political ... comrade!

---

Its not political its the truth....or at least what I believe to be the truth;) I am supported in this belief by A N Wilson (the historian)...and by cut of his jib he has to be a public school boy :eek:

Quote:

---

I don't see anybody else saying they make mistakes here though

---

I never make mistakes. I discover them when I get home;)

Ok seeing as this has turned into the CiC confessional box....forgive me Sean for I have sinned. Three times this week I had indecent thoughts about a what I would like to do with a 70-200 f/2.8. Only yesterday I left my ISO at 800 and my exposure compensation at -2 EV. I have envied mine neighbour and coveted his 5D Mk II and I have committed the cardinal sin shooting to the right and sneakily trying to recover details from the eternal shadow. But yea, verily, I have seen the light brothers....I wont be firing a test strobe from my speed light into my eyes agin that for certain...what the hell are those red blobs that swim in front of your eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arith

I just do photographs. I would like to create an emotional response. Strange thing happened today, every photograph I did failed, it has never happened before.
It takes me back to the insecurity of film where you just get everything wrong.

I don't see anybody else saying they make mistakes here though, see ya.

---

I'll repeat what my professinal photographer friend said, "a good photograph is something that you go out and shoot and shoot and, at the end of the day, maybe you have one or two that are good and that you can string together into something that is poetic."

I think that that is what the fear of PAD is - knowing that there are THOSE days. Else wise, people's portfolios would have thousands of perfect photos in them and none of us would even need to be here OR to ask this question. :) btw, my sympathies, friend, I know how that feels - I really, really know how that feels! :(

I confessed to my artist sister what I had done to you all with this thread. ;) She said, "uh, oh! That is THE discussion - but a fun one." or something to that effect. "Art" (whatever it is) can't be pinned down because it is a living and personal entity. Colin's picture hit me deeply. It's the first photo I've seen where the sea has the quality and personality that I love dearly about it in real life. I can see it, feel it, taste it, hear it! My sis made the comment that someone tries to get across their vision with the best skill that they can. Once it's been put out there, though, it takes on a life of it's own. Everyone brings their own self to it's viewing and may see something else. It doesn't work as a piece of art if it is just hard to notice - can't hold anyone's attention. Soooooo, I guess that a family photo can be good, better, best - that's what it's function is. A work that someone wants to be art - well - it's going to need to demand more - whatever that is. Technicalities help for both - for all of it. My sister mentioned taking snapshots that are artistic but lacking in skill - therefore, she feels that they really are more snapshots. Honestly, going back to the thought about a good film and a bad one - the idea may be artistic but if there is absolutely no skill or flare for telling it, then I'm bored and don't want to watch it. Conversely, you can have all the best special effects in the world and no substance and I'm bored and don't really want to watch. Then again, (Steve ;)) you can have a movie that is disturbing and goes against my grain aaaaaaaand, I don't really want to watch - I don't HAVE to watch but, even if it's contrary to who I am - if it's done well and with substance, i admire it. It's good

Ack! I don't have time to really check what i just wrote - maybe I'll even change my mind BUT my middle son needs the computer NOW, apparently. (Webkinz triumphs!)

This is a fascinating thread.

Bill Belknap was my mentor. White House photographer during WWII, National Geographic, and major magazine photographer and well known in his day for photographs of the SouthWest Indian Nations. He drilled into me that the camera is a box to hold photographs. Its only job is to capture light. The PICTURE is behind your eyes.

I remember him commenting that watching people walkng around a showing would give you an idea whether certain photographs were actually pictures. Those that elicited a second look were in the running. Those which had people comng back around after having made the first circuit deserved to be called pictures.

He seldom discussed Art or art in photography. He did recognise that photography is visual art done with tools. Of course, painting, sculpting, drawing, architecture, and gardening are also visual arts done with tools. The finished product must then be judged by others than the creator for the decision whether the art produced is actually Art.

An artist is someone who produces things to be enjoyable to and enjoyed by others.
An Artist is one whose works have remained popular beyond his life and era.
An Artiste is one who judges himself and his own work. :D

Pops