what makes a good photograph

RichC said:
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".

-No... From my description, good photographs, as the rest of art, offer the viewer a new world to live in. But I never said what makes a photograph a good one, makes any other work good art of any kind...

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.

-Beyond presumably, wrong... I care.

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".

-There are lots of differences. Why do you pretend I stated there are no differences?

So, there must be something special about a photograph for you, something that a painting, say, doesn't have.

-What's seriously different to other visual arts if we talk about photography, is that we deal with reality. Not the concepts of reality, but the visual reality, the seen one... Reality is our raw material, so our expression is a very delicate one, a restricted one that's learnt to talk without its own words, with mysterious messages, because we can not create or express with the same freedom, clarity or simplicity other artists can on canvas, or in a novel... We start with borrowed material... In the same way, an educated photography viewer sees in a photograph far beyond the concept reality shows at first sight... That's why it's often said all photographs are self portraits in some way...

This unique quality that only a photograph possesses must therefore be part of what makes a photograph "good" to you.

-The things that make a photograph a good one, vary... Looks like you need one, but I insist I can't find a rule... In general a good photograph includes a complex balance of things as different as heart, mind, technique, creativity, humor, experience in life, etc., as in that quote where a photographer is like a circus guy keeping in control several balls in the air at the same time...

What is this unique quality of photography?
Click to expand...

-Forget about unique.

Cheers,
Juan
 
Juan - that's a far more interesting answer than most others, and you put your finger on the core essence of a "good" photograph - one that revolves around its connection with reality.

Surprisingly, only myself and the original poster - and now you - have pointed out the importance to a photograph of its connection with reality.

A "good" photograph makes the viewer aware that the view and subject it depicts once existed. The mere fact that a photograph is by its nature a record of the past is not sufficient by itself - this quality must actively involve the viewer, not be a background property subservient to composition, tone, colour and other pictorial aspects.

Many well-known photographers have been mentioned in this thread - from Winograd to Simon Norfolk: what they have in common is the powerful evocation of time and real life.

Its ability to record reality - to capture and show an event - is what makes a photograph unique, what makes it different from other kinds of picture.

If you think about it, this property lies behind many threads on RFF that have underlying them a preference for film as a tangible connection to reality or a dissatisfaction with digital - especially if heavily manipulated (HDR, Instagram), weakening a photograph's connection to reality.
 
Rich, when I look at a Porsche 356 I'm not thinking of its beauty in terns of its 'carness'. I don't marvel at its lack of hooves or it's complete leglessness: I take it as given that it is a car. Even the Citroen DS without wheels suspended in the air at its original showing was still undeniably a car. Many photographs may not be 'real', or at least not demonstrably so. Some of the fine NZ photographers shown recently in f11 magazine use a processing which is like painting or etching. I just don't see that point you're pressing. I think the opposite to what you imply: some powerful photographs may not be certain to be photographs, or depictions of real objects.
 
RichC said:
Juan - that's a far more interesting answer than most others, and you put your finger on the core essence of a "good" photograph - one that revolves around its connection with reality.

Surprisingly, only myself and the original poster - and now you - have pointed out the importance to a photograph of its connection with reality.
Click to expand...

I hate to think that you'd dismiss the opinions of 90% of posters herein because they disagree with; or fail to echo your ideals.

I think the fact that we don't all like the same image is what makes photography great. If I like a picture and others disregard or don't understand it, then said image is bestowed with a kind of additional power for me. I never consider the other viewer wrong in his judgement.
 
I hate to rain on your parade Rich, but I don't think Juan was agreeing with you in his three word reply; as I read it he was suggesting that your insistence on restricting the argument to what is unique to photography is not essential to this thread. Juan might like to clarify that.

Now I'm sure you are a reasonably bright person - you certainly try hard in your posts to demonstrate that you are - but perhaps you could show other posters the courtesy of actually trying to understand their responses and respecting their opinions, however much you disagree with them, rather than trying to bury them in a convoluted farrago of braggadocio (sure I have used a couple of ridiculous words here but I don't think they even begin to approach "medium specificity").
 
Harry S. said:
I hate to think that you'd dismiss the opinions of 90% of posters herein because they disagree with; or fail to echo your ideals.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. I'm saying that they're answering the wrong question. They're telling me what they think makes a "good" picture. The OP asked what makes a "good" photograph.

The answers here are all subjective, and so would mine if I responded similarly. In large part a "good" photograph will of course depend entirely on a person's preferences. I'm not denying that: what I think makes a "good" photograph won't be the same as yours.

And a "good" photograph also depends on its use: a "good" snapshot may be "bad" in a scientific journal or as a forensic police record of a crime scene; my parents think my photographs are "bad" but they've been published and exhibited worldwide as contemporary art.

What I'm trying to get it is: what is it about a photograph that makes it "good" to you, that makes you PREFER it to a "good" painting, say? It may be that you consider paintings and photographs to be all the same - all pictures - and don't care whether you're looking a 100% artificial computer graphic or a photograph recorded from life. Personally, I don't agree with that view - but it is perfectly valid.
 
Harry S. said:
I think the fact that we don't all like the same image is what makes photography great. If I like a picture and others disregard or don't understand it, then said image is bestowed with a kind of additional power for me. I never consider the other viewer wrong in his judgement.
Click to expand...

We don't all like the same picture, but we don't all like a different one either. There is huge overlap or commonality in what we respond to (How many agree that Robert Frank made a great photo book?). That's where the connection is. Isn't the connection what it's all about?

To say, "It's simply what I like", is to dismiss that in a way.
 
RichC said:
You misunderstand. I'm saying that they're answering the wrong question. They're telling me what they think makes a "good" picture. The OP asked what makes a "good" photograph... SNIP!
Click to expand...

Another tricky one, so now photo's aren't pictures or is it the other way round? I'd say that one subsumes the other but I'm not sure which.

And, since we seem to be straying into Hegel's territory, I wonder if I dare point out that sometimes bad photo's amuse me and so that makes them good photo's or perhaps both...

Regards, David
 
How many agree that Robert Frank made a great photo book?
Click to expand...

Roughly 10,000 people, that being my approximation of the number who have ever heard of Robert Frank, hold an opinion of "greatness" in this context and agree with your assertion. That's quite a big number, until you compare it with 6,000,000,000.

:angel:
 
David Hughes said:
Another tricky one, so now photo's aren't pictures or is it the other way round? I'd say that one subsumes the other but I'm not sure which.
Click to expand...

I'd say that photographs are a kind of picture...

David Hughes said:
And, since we seem to be straying into Hegel's territory, I wonder if I dare point out that sometimes bad photo's amuse me and so that makes them good photo's or perhaps both...
Click to expand...
And you're right of course - a bad photo is also a good photo depending on the circumstances and who's looking. Which is why I've been attempting to take the subjectivity out of this thread and consider what is unique to all photographs - because surely if a photograph embraces this quality (which I think Robert Frank's photos do, since he's just been mentioned), then that plays a large part in making a photograph "good"?
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
Roughly 10,000 people, that being my approximation of the number who have ever heard of Robert Frank, hold an opinion of "greatness" in this context and agree with your assertion. That's quite a big number, until you compare it with 6,000,000,000.

:angel:
Click to expand...

You could say ten thousand probably more per semester graduating from photography and art programs have all hear of him. Times that by year then by decade and then add in people that love art and photography and I would say there certainly are a lot of people that know and many admire his work.

Way more than 10,000 bought the book The Americans...
 
I would say the majority because great it is. Might not be to one person but history certainly shows that it is one of a handful of truly significant photography books from the mid 20th century. And then theres all the photographers that it had a major influence on. Meyerowitz, Davidson and Winogrand to name just 3....

Meyerowitz became a photographer because of Frank.
 
johnny scarecrow said:
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.
Click to expand...

Quoting from the urban legend Is Hell endothermic or exothermic:

"As for souls entering hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to hell."

Using that same logic, since not every person likes every photo, there can be no consensus on "good;" and since most people label what they don't like as "bad," then it follows that every photo produced is, in fact, bad.

Therefore there is no good photography, nor will there ever be.
 
hepcat said:
Quoting from the urban legend Is Hell endothermic or exothermic:

"As for souls entering hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to hell."

Using that same logic, since not every person likes every photo, there can be no consensus on "good;" and since most people label what they don't like as "bad," then it follows that every photo produced is, in fact, bad.

Therefore there is no good photography, nor will there ever be.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, but this argument could also support the idea that there is no bad photography and never will be.

I think that good and bad are vague words and there's no agreement about where the dividing line is. So we'll just go round and round in circles. I suppose that what forums are for...

Regards, David
 
I think that good and bad are vague words and there's no agreement about where the dividing line is. So we'll just go round and round in circles. I suppose that what forums are for...
Click to expand...

It appears self evident to me that all assessments of the "quality" of art are subjective and I do wonder about people, who feel that their opinion of something's worth is, in some way, binding on others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom