what makes a good photograph

[rluka]

What makes a good color ?

Cone cells, obviously


Often had the same question when viewing pictures, even those that actually create emotional engagement.

- Is the photo actually good, or I'm just interested because it shows me a new view (novelty) ? If so, will it become not good if I already seen similar thing for dozens of times ?

- Is the photo actually good, or I'm just appreciating the photographer's effort ? This is usually for photo taken from remote or difficult places and photo series in a theme that shows perseverance of the photographer to keep with a theme. Then if I'm a selfish person who can't appreciate someone else's effort, the picture might look just... meh

- Is the photo actually good, or is the object and story in that photo is good ? Maybe I'm splitting hair here and arguments can be made that it's the photographer's skill to make things more dramatic, but many times it's what's in the photo that's more interesting than the photo itself, I want to know what the story inside, but could care less about who's taking the picture or how it's being made.

- Is the photo actually good as described by the techniques (proportion, pattern, framing, any other checkbox in the list) or is it just a mental game that stimulates my mind and grab my attention ? If so, then I'd feel tricked when thinking it's good.


On unrelated note, seems like premium coffee is labelled with scoring in a checklist of 10 categories (need to have > 80/100 score).

 

[Paul Jenkin]

If it were possible to provide a definitive answer to this question, everyone would do it and all photos would start to look the same - which would render them all pretty awful.

I can never take seriously any tome that seeks to address formal compositional "rules" as, by following such formulae, our "eye" is diatracted from the subject into making pseudo-scientific calculations about where to place the object on the frame - rather than concentrating on hitting the button when the scene "looks right". Some will say that we do these calculations subconsciously as compositional rules are applied whether we believe we are thinking about them or not. I'm not convinced.

Then there's subject matter and light. For me, both have to work in harmony. I've stood at the top of moiuntains admiring spectacular views but, as the lighting was flat and dull, there was no point wasting the frame. Equally, I've been present when there's been wonderful lighting but nothing in front of me that was worth recording.

Overall, in my opinion, a good photograph must go beyond the craft or taking an acceptably sharp and well-exposed photograph. It needs to tell the viewer about the subject matter in a way that makes them want to be there or, at the very least, learn more about the subject (whatever the subject might be). Otherwise, a photograph is nothing more than a competent record of the subject in a specific time and place.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Paul,
Weston kinda says the same thing as does Newman...And a few others that you have heard of I'm sure.
"When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches." - Edward Weston

"There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams

"And in not learning the rules, I was free. I always say, you're either defined by the medium or you redefine the medium in terms of your needs." - Duane Michals

"And if you can find out something about the laws of your own growth and vision as well as those of photography you may be able to relate the two, create an object that has a life of its own, which transcends craftsmanship. That is a long road, and because it must be your own road nobody can teach it to you or find it for you. There are no shortcuts, no rules." - Paul Strand

"Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried!" - Bill Brandt

"I came from the outside, the rules of photography didn't interest me... "-William Klein

"...... a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. " Garry Winogrand

"......so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing." - Edward Weston

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Well, I think it's important to avoid over analysis and just to enjoy or loathe the things: it's a very grey area. And, usually, once the analysis has been done someone will do the exact opposite just to prove the analyser was wrong. It's got a long history...

BTW, most cameras are bought by men and so I take pictures of cars and save them for samples when I sell the P&S or whatever else on ebay. It seems to work better than a sample that's technically perfect.

Regards, David

 

[Harry S.]

Its impossible to define, as we all have different tastes...for instance I don't particularly care for the picture that RichC posted even though many would.

 

[__jc]

Harry makes a very good point.

I'd confidently suggest there wouldn't be one photograph, not one out of the billions or trillions or whatever taken, that everyone visiting even just this thread, would regard as "good".

So if we always fail to reach consensus, does it mean that no photograph is inherently good? I'd suggest that the goodness or otherwise of a photograph is necessarily a very personal judgement.

 

[daveleo]

............ I'd suggest that the goodness or otherwise of a photograph is necessarily a very personal judgement.

It is also a matter of your emotional mood and frame of mind, when you view the picture. "Good picture" changes for you (the viewer) as time goes by. Today, that Monet chokes you with emotion; tomorrow it's tiresome; next year it reminds you of your lost Summer love; ten years out you're into abstract expressionism and Monet is so old school ......

Same holds for photographs.

 

[RichC]

Most of you keep giving subjective replies - I tried to be objective (see post 19).

How about some objective, not personal, definitions? What makes a photograph "good" because of what it is, not because of personal reasons?

What do people think of my argument above? If you disagree, do you have an alternative objective explanation of what makes a photograph "good"...?

 

[__jc]

I think "most people" have given the response to the question that they regard as adequate to state the position they hold.

Whether it suits your agenda is neither here nor there.

 

[Richard G]

I think "most people" have given the response to the question that they regard as adequate to state the position they hold.

Whether it suits your agenda is neither here nor there.

I agree with this. Rich C, as I was reading the early paragraphs of your post number 19 I was thinking of exactly the book you later quoted. But I am not sure that any of those different elements of Szarkowski's analysis necessarily offer much on what makes an individual photograph great. Ultimately a great photograph must go beyond a mere formula. It is a given that a great photograph will be a photograph in the first place, so naturally no-one here addressed the uniqueness of photography as a medium.

A building at dusk might just be some dull underexposed picture of a house, or the deep blacks, the grain and the delicate tree to the right and the slight motion blur might conjure up the passing of the old order and lift the photograph above the banal particular and make it universal and perhaps even great. The subtlety of these things is such that the potential considerations are legion and only one or two apply in the case of a particular image, and subjectivity in the form of a trained sensibility becomes the arbiter.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I think there's no way to define what makes a photograph a good one: no rules, no geometry, no technique, no content are, per se, guaranteed...
But there's something in daring, in avoiding clichés, in relaxing, in feeling, in not caring too much, that helps for a freshness, present in best street shots by Frank and Winogrand... Maybe that's close to what Winogrand thought when he said "photography must show reality as it is", and "there's no special way a photograph should look", or "a good photograph is alway close to failure."
Personally, I get really bored in front of photographs worried about geometry and about impactant landscapes, or sharpness and tonal rande, and printing with superficial, unreal dodging and burning, etc... What I like is not the beauty of nature: I prefer to directly look at nature... What I really like is a photograph that tells a story, and especially one that allows you to get inside it, like a movie, and think lots of things no matter if you look at it for years...
Cheers,
Juan

 

[gns]

Answers as general as, "It has to speak to me" or as non-committal as, "there are no rules to making a good photograph" are not untrue, but they aren't very interesting or helpful either. And they just provoke the question, "then why photography?" or, "then what makes one picture more interesting than the others?". I don't believe there are any rules or formulas that can be applied to making or viewing photographs, but surely there is something about the medium that makes it interesting to you, no? I suggested some of the traits (and RichC echoed some of them in his post) of photography that for me, seem to stand out over and over in the most interesting photos. They are not a guideline for evaluating photographs, but they are an observation about what I think are good ones.

 

[Aristophanes]

we'll know when the Deep Blue of photography is created.

 

[David Hughes]

Most of you keep giving subjective replies - I tried to be objective (see post 19).

How about some objective, not personal, definitions? What makes a photograph "good" because of what it is, not because of personal reasons?

What do people think of my argument above? If you disagree, do you have an alternative objective explanation of what makes a photograph "good"...?

Hmmm, tricky this one; no personal opinions but what do I think of it?

I'll think about it...

Regards, David

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Another way to say it:
I believe photography, when good, is art...
Art, as seen by some experts, is an expression with multiple levels to go in, not one with just a single, literal meaning... And art is considered a work a viewer can use for an adventure, a personal aesthetic adventure, which can itself be a creative activity: that's why in modern art theory some of the art is "done" by the viewer... Anyway, perhaps the greatest thing of art is it allows different perceptions from different viewers, being all of them equally valid no matter the original author's intention... The artist gives birth to a work, but it grows beyond its creator and becomes a different creature (at least in part), and it's the viewer the one who can judge it depending on how much adventure the work of art offered. And finally, an expression is art as soon as someone can feel or say it's art... It's that simple...
So a photograph is good when we can travel inside it... The problem, or what's confusing sometimes, is that the word photograph is used to mean a simple visual 2D reproduction of reality, and then a simple, but good or well done, 2D reproduction of reality is often called a good photograph... We should have different words for both cases...

 

[RichC]

Another way to say it:
I believe photography, when good, is art...
Art, as seen by some experts, is an expression with multiple levels to go in, not one with just a single, literal meaning... And art is considered a work a viewer can use for an adventure, a personal aesthetic adventure, which can itself be a creative activity: that's why in modern art theory some of the art is "done" by the viewer... Anyway, perhaps the greatest thing of art is it allows different perceptions from different viewers, being all of them equally valid no matter the original author's intention... The artist gives birth to a work, but it grows beyond its creator and becomes a different creature (at least in part), and it's the viewer the one who can judge it depending on how much adventure the work of art offered. And finally, an expression is art as soon as someone can feel or say it's art... It's that simple...

But that has nothing to do with a photograph per se. You could equally well be describing a "good" painting or movie or sculpture. And that's my problem with this and most of the other definitions here - from your descriptions, what makes a photograph "good" to you also makes a painting "good".

Presumably, then, you don't care whether you're looking at a photograph or a painting since they can both fit your definitions of "good" ... that is, be art, stir emotion, use or break visual "rules", depict time, use tone and colour for effect and affect, etc.

But that's not true, of course. You're a photographer - you like taking photographs, like looking at them. You don't think "good" photographs and paintings are interchangeable. There's a difference in their "goodness".

So, there must be something special about a photograph for you, something that a painting, say, doesn't have. This unique quality that only a photograph possesses must therefore be part of what makes a photograph "good" to you.

What is this unique quality of photography?

 

[David Hughes]

Simples! I can visualise something as a painting, sketch or photograph but I can't draw very well. "O" level art being about my limit. OTOH, I can sort out things in the view-finder and press the button, as Kodak used to say. 'nuff said?

Regards, David

PS And for a photo you don't have to pay the model for several days just for one picture...

 

[kbg32]

“We know too much about how pictures look and should look. How do you get around making those pictures again and again?”

“Frame in terms of what you want to have in the picture, not about making a nice picture, that anybody can do.”

- Garry Winogrand

 

[gns]

“We know too much about how pictures look and should look. How do you get around making those pictures again and again?”

“Frame in terms of what you want to have in the picture, not about making a nice picture, that anybody can do.”

- Garry Winogrand

These comments are not his answers to what makes a good photograph. They were made in different contexts or discussions: composition and shooting, respectively.

When asked about good photographs, he would talk about the unique relationship between form and content in a photograph, how good photographs reveal ways to deal with that "Problem". And how the photograph has to be more interesting, more dramatic than the subject, go beyond the mere document, etc. He would actually try to answer the question.

 

[tunalegs]

So, what (to you) makes an interesting photo?

I think there are two basic ways a photograph can be interesting.
1: the subject is interesting
2: the subject is presented in an interesting way

Number 1 explains things like the 1954 Pulitzer prize winning photograph of the truck wreck, or the photos of the sinking Vestris. Which are not particularly interesting for their composition or any other technique, but because they present an unusual situation that's not seen often, if ever by most people.

Number 2 explains things like still life photographs, which present normal objects in a way which is interesting (supposing the photographer has figured out a way to make it interesting).

Many of the "best" photographs combine 1 and 2 to some degree.