Ahem.... I have a basic question

[paparazzi mano]

Hi Chappies

Been an avid photg for over a decade.

Sometimes I wonder what makes a good photograph? The camera body, the lightmeter (could be a optomechanical instrument or just your eyes) or the lens.

IMHO The body is just a light tight box. I think the RF/VF is important for framing, the lightmeter is to make sure that you capture the entire light spectrum and the lens is just to convert the light to film. I dont need extra sharp lens as long as they are not foggy like pea soup.

Appreciate some comments or guidance pls

 

[lynnb]

Quick answer: your eyes (i.e. the way you see things) makes a good photograph. Cameras are only tools to help you create a permanent record of what you see. If you want to take good pictures, think about what you see (and learn how to use your tools effectively to record what you had in your mind and eye). You'll find lots of useful information in the philosophy of photography threads.

Cheers,

 

[Takkun]

What makes a good photograph, I think we can all agree, is more than just the above listed.

What of the items you listed makes the most aesthetic impact? The lens, without question. It's the device that actually records the scene onto the imaging medium. As we've seen with the proliferation of adapters for mirror less cameras, there's a lot of interest in experimenting with different lenses and their optical properties.

 

[B-9]

Wait I thought this was a gear forum? 😉

I can honestly say, I like the cameras just a tiny bit more than I do picture taking.
Call it what you will, but I think these light tight boxes are kind of groovy!

Time, place, vision, weather are all aspects of a good photo also.
But really it's all sort of wishy washey, it's hard to say what's trendy.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

This could turn into a war on the forum...

This could turn into a war on the forum...

What makes a good photograph is the photographer and their ability to see. To visualize the image, the way the lighting would look good, the composition, the depth of field.

The camera is secondary to this. It is a tool. Some tools are better than others but more than 97% of the iconic photos made in the history of the medium have been made with normal gear or gear that we think of today as very behind the times. The current consumer-grade photo kit is many generations ahead of what was available to photographers thirty years ago. The work of Atget, Cartier-Bresson, Huet, Griffiths, Capa, Evans, Karsh, Duncan, Burrows, Bourke-White, Lange, and so many others was made on gear that is still technically fantastic today but far behind what comes in a consumer DSLR kit.

Some gear is better made than other gear but there is a lot of garbage being produced by a lot of folks with more money than the ability to make a good photograph. An amazing camera can just make a boring or otherwise not-good photograph sharper or with better bokeh or less field curvature or more evenly exposed in the corners or whatever.

Phil Forrest

 

[lynnb]

Just in case I misread your question: everyone brings their own interpretation to a photograph so what is a good photograph to one viewer is nothing special to another.

The general qualities of a photograph that tend to appeal to me includes (not necessarily all at once, and some of these may not apply at all to any one particular photograph):
- emotional response
- interesting or novel idea
- beautiful light
- satisfying composition/graphic design
- an exceptional "wow" moment (often emotional response)
- a well executed and communicated view of the world the photographer saw
- there would be other things on this list I haven't had time to think of

An accomplished photographer uses the best tools at hand at the time. Different types of cameras are better at different things. Your question is very general; for example a rangefinder vf has definite advantages for street photography, as does an unobtrusive camera that doesn't frighten subjects.

Does this help?

 

[paparazzi mano]

I hope not..........

I hope not..........

What makes a good photograph is the photographer and their ability to see. To visualize the image, the way the lighting would look good, the composition, the depth of field.

The camera is secondary to this. It is a tool. Some tools are better than others but more than 97% of the iconic photos made in the history of the medium have been made with normal gear or gear that we think of today as very behind the times. The current consumer-grade photo kit is many generations ahead of what was available to photographers thirty years ago. The work of Atget, Cartier-Bresson, Huet, Griffiths, Capa, Evans, Karsh, Duncan, Burrows, Bourke-White, Lange, and so many others was made on gear that is still technically fantastic today but far behind what comes in a consumer DSLR kit.

Some gear is better made than other gear but there is a lot of garbage being produced by a lot of folks with more money than the ability to make a good photograph. An amazing camera can just make a boring or otherwise not-good photograph sharper or with better bokeh or less field curvature or more evenly exposed in the corners or whatever.

Phil Forrest

Hmmm I agree with you. This reminds me of a chap who bought a vintage 70s BMW M3. Without abs and being a 5 speed made it rather tricky for a novice.

Sorry I digress. Yes I think think that the ability to frame as well as to simultaneously calculate the right expose is why I like mechanical rangefinders. Its a right step from PS.

As for the lens, I have been using a Summi pre A 35 and the Ruskie 53mm Industar for over a decade. I think that the familiarity of the practical rendering of the lens is important. I like the rough and honest Industar for B&W cos its almost unadulterated and somewhat flawed. Almost human if you know what I mean.

Cheers

 

[Roger Hicks]

Depends on the picture. Some are good for one reason; some for another. Universal theories are invariably flawed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[citizen99]

... Universal theories are invariably flawed.

Cheers,

R.

Nice 😀 .
+ dummy characters.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Appreciate some comments or guidance pls

You're a wicked lad, Paparazzi. 🙂

Still, I'll play along. Item the first: there's no such thing as a good photo. There's a sharp photo; a colourful photo; a photo that shows interesting action; a photo that captures an interesting moment; a photo that shows a scene in a pleasurable way; a photo that informs; a photo that shocks; a photo that arouses; a photo that pleases one person and displeases another...

I could go on and on and on but will leave that to others. :angel:

 

[paparazzi mano]

Yes......

Yes......

You're a wicked lad, Paparazzi. 🙂

Still, I'll play along. Item the first: there's no such thing as a good photo. There's a sharp photo; a colourful photo; a photo that shows interesting action; a photo that captures an interesting moment; a photo that shows a scene in a pleasurable way; a photo that informs; a photo that shocks; a photo that arouses; a photo that pleases one person and displeases another...

I could go on and on and on but will leave that to others. :angel:

IMHO A great photo is what appeals to your eye and your mind's eye. Yes its an personal thing and crosses many concepts and ideas.

And to create a good story, there is the main actor (the in focus and well exposed parts) as well as the contrasts in the highlights as well as the supporting characters lurking in the inky shadows.

I guess that it's the engaging story telling as opposed to just a pic grab or today's too common selfie.😛

And I do enjoy a good story while enjoying a pint......

Cheers

 

[Sparrow]

... I do ... occasionally

 

[__jc]

Universal theories are invariably flawed.

Cheers,

R.

Good theory.

Ergo...

 

[Keith]

Hi Chappies

Been an avid photg for over a decade.

Sometimes I wonder what makes a good photograph? The camera body, the lightmeter (could be a optomechanical instrument or just your eyes) or the lens.

IMHO The body is just a light tight box. I think the RF/VF is important for framing, the lightmeter is to make sure that you capture the entire light spectrum and the lens is just to convert the light to film. I dont need extra sharp lens as long as they are not foggy like pea soup.

Appreciate some comments or guidance pls

And occasionally it projects it onto a digital sensor .... 🙄

 

[JoeV]

I agree with the OP that, in the final analysis, the camera and lens matters little as compared to the impact of the photo itself. This is especially true when a non-technically oriented public is appreciating an image; they could care less by what means an image was created.

Conversely, to us process-oriented photographers, we often care more about knowing the technical details of an image's creation than appreciating the image itself. Which is to our loss.

~Joe

 

[farlymac]

A good photo is in the eye of the beholder. I've had folks go nuts over images of mine that I thought were either run-of-the-mill, or just plain crap. And the opposite is true, also.

PF

 

[Bill Clark]

Beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder.

I believe I heard this from Dean Collins.

To me, it's about posing, lighting & composition.

Then educating each potential client so as they become a paying customer.

 

[mfogiel]

Hmmm, let's see...

The most expensive photograph ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II
Recipe? Insist on showing a meaningless image in huge size. (photoshop it a bit to eliminate distracting parts of reality) Insist for several years with the help of complacent art dealers, who will bid up the auctions for you. Use an 8x10 field camera or an Iphone - does not matter.

The second most expensive photograph ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untitled_96
Recipe: be born as a good looking girl. Insist on dressing up strangely and making selfies in various poses. Use whatever camera is handy. Repeat for 40 years without ever saying to yourself: what the f..ck am I still doing after all these years, instead of looking for a job or starting to make good photography?

The third most expensive photograph ever:
http://www.greynotgrey.com/blog/2012/05/15/jeff-wall-dead-troops-talk/
Recipe: become a photoshop geek, cut and paste freely, make sure that whatever comes out of it is shocking enough to draw attention and sell. No need for any camera whatsoever.

At this point, you might start seeing a pattern....

 

[Roger Hicks]

Good theory.

Ergo...

This is what is known as an infinite regression, or possibly a paradox.

All Cretans are liars. I am a Cretan...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder.

I believe I heard this from Dean Collins.

To me, it's about posing, lighting & composition.

Then educating each potential client so as they become a paying customer.

Dear Bill,

Does a good picture have to sell? If it does sell, is its price the sole indicator of its merit?

Cheers,

R.