What makes a *good* photo?

[tolyto]

I'm throwing this question out there to learn from the creative, artistic, visionary people on this forum. I'm not trying to stir a pot or start a debate...I'm deeply into photography only about a year; I still have so much to learn. But when I look through the critique sections, I'm always interested in the feedback people give based on their own opinions of what makes a shot *good*.

For me, again as a total novice, the technical aspect of *good* is when a shot is sharp, colors pop (I'm a fan of post-processing because of this), and there is an intentional (or seemingly intentional) framing. The non-technical (for lack of a term here) is when a shot evokes a response - it is moody, or it communicates something to me - a little hard to describe, I suppose.

But I really know nothing. So humor me. What do you think makes a shot *good*?

[edbayani]

YOU, make the good shot!

[beth0b]

This is a completely subjective question, so I'm sure the responses will vary a lot! But for me personally, to really simplify things, an image needs to have good composition. If that is lacking, the image will be mediocre at best, in my opinion. No amount of post processing (aside from actually altering the image so it has better composition) can fix that.

I like a shot that can hold my interest for more than a few seconds.

[FDCPR]

Good question you've posed. Determining what is "good" is a very subjective view and really depends upon the viewer. Going from a good photo to a great photo is even more subjective. I've viewed photos of some that were (are) considered masters of the craft, and while they are technically good I find the work boring. Sports photographers do a wonderful job of capturing the moment and getting technically correct photos. While these photos excite a lot of people I have no emotion for them at all. As a non-sports person I can appreciate the skill to get the shot, but the shot does nothing for me. Conveying emotion, good or bad, goes a long way to make a photo good. Again, that is very dependent upon the viewer. My normal photo subjects are wildlife, I take and view a lot of different photos. Some of the photos are good for the simple fact a certain action was captured or something rare or an endangered species was photographed. Although the photos may be lacking technically they can still be good just for capturing that particular animal. I also shoot hundreds of images per week of various technically related material. While those images are good technically, they offer nothing in the way of artistic value. These images are totally for documentation and while they mean a lot to different people involved in these projects anyone else viewing them will find them boring.

Bottom line is find the subjects that excites you, shoot them as technically and artistically correct as you can. But when something is a little off in the shot, still consider it good for you. Now if you're selling then totally forget what's good for you, find what your target market considers good and shoot for them. As the old saying goes, the customer is always right. Photographers seem to forget that concept and when they do they don't last very long. Before you guys blast me, I'm not talking about giving up your right to price accordingly or photograph rights. Just that if they want a shot of themselves standing on their head while drinking a beer, shoot the thing and charge them for the shot.

Since you mentioned the critique section I'll add something I've always thought but never voiced it before. First off I only offer a critique in one area, the rest I don't feel qualified to give an opinion. A lot of photos get posted in critique that begin with, I really love this shot but.... Every time I see one of these posts my first thought is if you love the photo why are you asking for others to give their opinion. More often than not I close the post without a reply because I don't love the photo and don't want to give an honest opinion as most people really don't want to hear it. If you love it, enjoy it as much as you can and don't worry what others think.

Now disregard everything I've said as I'm awake with insomnia and just bored.

[BCampbell]

If I knew, I would only take good photos.

Funny thing is, we get caught up on technical details, like you mention. We get so concerned over ISO noise, pinpoint sharpness, vignetting and softness in the corners of our lenses, how many megapixels our cameras have... and very rarely do these things make a good image by themselves.

The example of the Cartier-Bresson photo posted to a flickr "save/delete" group and getting panned on technical grounds is a good one, and my friends and I still quote "should have used a tripod" in jest all the time.

There as many answers to this as there are photographers (a lot). For me, photography is communication. I am trying to communicate something -- an emotion, an idea, a concept, a moment, whatever. If I can effectively communicate that, it's a good photo.

"Stuff"

~Eric

[spencer28n]

Originally Posted by maxharvard

"Stuff"

~Eric

Ya don't say!

The qualities of a great photograph are immeasurable. A great photograph is able to connect with its viewer on the most fundamental levels and evoke any emotion of any kind (other than boredom ). The same really holds true for all art and literature. Emotions that translate through art mediums can range from blatant to subtle from happy to sad etc.

Spencer

[zerimar13]

As what have been said, the topic is subjective. But aside from being an art, photography is also a science. Well, for me they go together. Thus, having a good photo taken is something that portrays emotion, ideas, concept, etc. without compromising the technical aspects, the exposure and the like.

A bad photo is something that lacks composition, confusing, a reckless shot - unplanned and outfocus (in conveying the idea). Get the "opposite" for a good shot.

Whether, I am a novice in photography, I have something to say as photography is closely similar to other art forms.

[Rehesan]

Like the other replies I think the question could be a little subjective, because something that is "good" for someone, could be poor or mediocre for others.

I would take the basic technical side of the photography, in order to differentiate a snapshot from a fair good photo, so in this way I would say a good photo should have: good composition, good focus and correct exposure. From there, we can add other elements like: deep of field, creativity, interesting subject (also subjective), etc.

For me, a good photo is the one you liked when you shot it.

Originally Posted by spencer28n

Ya don't say!



Spencer

Frankly, my answer is virtually the same as any other. There is no answer.

I was just more concise.

~Eric