What makes a good photo?

[sk66]

What makes a photo "good"? When I say it is.....
It's all opinion and connection.

[SwissJon]

Thanks for the replies guys..

So we all agree that the story told by a picture is more important than technical perfection. Something that can't be measured and is a matter of opinion.

You see, we've had the occasional thread arguing that photography isn't an art, that it's just the ability to create and control the technical aspects, and once you've done that, the photo takes itself, and I've disagreed.. The best photos, in my opinion, are the ones that evoke a response in the observer.. I've seen some photos that are less than perfect.. Where the focus has been off or something, but it hasn't mattered, because the subject has been so strong that you don't notice, infect the technical imperfections can add to the emotional impact of a photo. (think of The kissing couple by Doisneau and several war photographs as an example)

This isn't (I don't think) something that you can measure and teach, it's something that needs to be nurtured and cultivated... It's something each of us has inside of us, some of us are able to express it more easily than others, but unless you're a psychopath, you're not devoid of emotion, and as such, you should be able to tap that emotion and find a way to express it in your photography.

I guess the reason for starting this thread was to try to affirm what I already believed, and I have managed it. The challenge now is to nurture the sense of wonder and awe I feel when looking at a beautiful landscape, to find that "wow" when looking at a wild animal, to capture the missed beat that I get in my chest when that beautiful woman is smiling at me, to recreate that sense of joy when interacting with a toddler, to capture the horror I feel when witnessing a scene of devestation, to not be afraid of these emotions, but to find a way of getting them into my box so I can share them with the world.

Does that make sense? Sorry if I'm rambling.

[johnpaulmathew]

Color combination and support of the light makes good photos..

[milosh]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

Thanks for the replies guys..

So we all agree that the story told by a picture is more important than technical perfection. Something that can't be measured and is a matter of opinion.

You see, we've had the occasional thread arguing that photography isn't an art, that it's just the ability to create and control the technical aspects, and once you've done that, the photo takes itself, and I've disagreed.. The best photos, in my opinion, are the ones that evoke a response in the observer.. I've seen some photos that are less than perfect.. Where the focus has been off or something, but it hasn't mattered, because the subject has been so strong that you don't notice, infect the technical imperfections can add to the emotional impact of a photo. (think of The kissing couple by Doisneau and several war photographs as an example)

This isn't (I don't think) something that you can measure and teach, it's something that needs to be nurtured and cultivated... It's something each of us has inside of us, some of us are able to express it more easily than others, but unless you're a psychopath, you're not devoid of emotion, and as such, you should be able to tap that emotion and find a way to express it in your photography.

I guess the reason for starting this thread was to try to affirm what I already believed, and I have managed it. The challenge now is to nurture the sense of wonder and awe I feel when looking at a beautiful landscape, to find that "wow" when looking at a wild animal, to capture the missed beat that I get in my chest when that beautiful woman is smiling at me, to recreate that sense of joy when interacting with a toddler, to capture the horror I feel when witnessing a scene of devastation, to not be afraid of these emotions, but to find a way of getting them into my box so I can share them with the world.

Does that make sense? Sorry if I'm rambling.

Yes, it does. I just wonder how much will take me to get there, and will I ever.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

Thanks for the replies guys..

So we all agree that the story told by a picture is more important than technical perfection. Something that can't be measured and is a matter of opinion.

You see, we've had the occasional thread arguing that photography isn't an art, that it's just the ability to create and control the technical aspects, and once you've done that, the photo takes itself, and I've disagreed.. The best photos, in my opinion, are the ones that evoke a response in the observer.. I've seen some photos that are less than perfect.. Where the focus has been off or something, but it hasn't mattered, because the subject has been so strong that you don't notice, infect the technical imperfections can add to the emotional impact of a photo. (think of The kissing couple by Doisneau and several war photographs as an example)

This isn't (I don't think) something that you can measure and teach, it's something that needs to be nurtured and cultivated... It's something each of us has inside of us, some of us are able to express it more easily than others, but unless you're a psychopath, you're not devoid of emotion, and as such, you should be able to tap that emotion and find a way to express it in your photography.

I guess the reason for starting this thread was to try to affirm what I already believed, and I have managed it. The challenge now is to nurture the sense of wonder and awe I feel when looking at a beautiful landscape, to find that "wow" when looking at a wild animal, to capture the missed beat that I get in my chest when that beautiful woman is smiling at me, to recreate that sense of joy when interacting with a toddler, to capture the horror I feel when witnessing a scene of devestation, to not be afraid of these emotions, but to find a way of getting them into my box so I can share them with the world.

Does that make sense? Sorry if I'm rambling.

Jon, so if I understand what your saying it's the emotional impact of a photograph that makes a photo a "good" photo. And I have to agree with most of what you said. However, I think that's only one part of the equation because the emotional impact it has for one viewer may be totally different to another person...so it's somewhat subjective. That said, you now have to look beyond those first emotional impressions, and look at the technical merits of the photograph. Can a photograph work solely on it's emotional impact? Sure, but I still feel that that's only one of the components of a good photograph. Remember, that wow factor that hits you in looking at a photograph may have little or no impact on the viewer standing next you. I've seen groups of judges at the CPPA judge the same photo where it's obvious that the emotional impact the photo has on them colors their ability to be totally objective in their evaluation. I guess it's human nature when you like something it's easy to overlook the flaws. But if you are going to judge a photograph objectively, you still have to look at the technical elements in the photograph, and not let your emotion bias your feelings...easier said than done though.

[Jim Bryant]

A "good" photo has lasting power. It's one that evokes a viewers' emotion and makes them want to study it time and time again.

[dlambert]

There's all the basic stuff that just has to be there -- lots of this is covered in the critique link, I think. You're going to have a hard time finding anyone who likes blurry photos, and so on. Once you've reached some measure of aptitude, though, there's a point where the next step gets a little blurry for a couple reasons:

First -- I think there's a point where an artist needs to start breaking the rules -- intentionally or unintentionally. We've all seen the "rule of thirds" used as a learning tool and over-used as a one-size-fits-all solution. It's a guideline, so it's going to work a lot of the time, but sometimes it's just not the look the artist is going for. Same for high-key or low-key photos, which are probably going to look over-exposed or under-exposed to some people. In my case, I feel like I need to think about following the rules first and then breaking them when I really mean to do so, but some people are talented enough to just "see" the way they want their photos to come out and make that happen.

Second (and probably more importantly) -- different people like different things. The more photos I put online, the more I'm surprised by the stuff that people respond to. I know a bad photo when I see it, but I've posted some (in my opinion) pretty ordinary photos and gotten positive feedback, as well as the opposite. At some point, you're going to find that you're appealing to some people, while others think your photos are junk. Personally, I'd rather have a photo that people respond to, even if some love it and some hate it, rather than have a bunch of "meh" photos. An example: "silky water" pictures. Some of us have gotten pretty tired of seeing these, but lots of people love them. Same for "selective coloring", and so on.

[kelleyrie]

A good photo, like any work of art, is judged by the eye of the beholder. Of course there are technical points to consider, but a technically sound photograph can be as static and uninteresting as a really awful one, if it fails to elicit an emotional response in the viewer. And of course the reverse is true too.