antiquark
Derek Ross
Ken Rockwell has posted his opinion on the matter:
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/basics.htm
He says it has more to do with the visual structure of the image, and in fact the subject matter isn't important.
I disagree, I think that "being there" is one of the most important aspects of a great photo. (As in that old phrase, "f/8 and be there.")
However, in general I don't think there's a simple rule for all styles of photography. Great landscape pictures have different characteristics than great portraits, for example.
Any other opinions on what makes a great photo?
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/basics.htm
He says it has more to do with the visual structure of the image, and in fact the subject matter isn't important.
I disagree, I think that "being there" is one of the most important aspects of a great photo. (As in that old phrase, "f/8 and be there.")
However, in general I don't think there's a simple rule for all styles of photography. Great landscape pictures have different characteristics than great portraits, for example.
Any other opinions on what makes a great photo?
Sparrow
Veteran
composition, content and narrative
in the right proportions
in the right proportions
morback
Martin N. Hinze
Well, besides the fact that I don't like his picture or any picture like the one that adorns his article, it's still a good article. His technical reasoning is sound, imho, but I believe it cannot stay at that. Otherwise I might just look at blueprints.
So, no, composition is not the nec plus ultra in photography to me. Feelings are: the human scale (physical or moral).
Mood. Feelings. Room for my imagination. Those are the things I look for. And his tips are right on as to how to achieve that.
So, no, composition is not the nec plus ultra in photography to me. Feelings are: the human scale (physical or moral).
Mood. Feelings. Room for my imagination. Those are the things I look for. And his tips are right on as to how to achieve that.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Depends on the picture. Mood. Content. Composition. Even technical quality (think AA).
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
not_in_good_order
Well-known
I think that people like William Eggleston and Lee Friedlander demonstrate that a great photo is truly about the structure of the image and that subject matter isn't particularly important.
Edit to add that though some of the work of the aforementioned artists is subject based, some of it is interesting simply because of the way the image is composed. IMO of course. On second thought, maybe "it depends" is the best answer.
Edit to add that though some of the work of the aforementioned artists is subject based, some of it is interesting simply because of the way the image is composed. IMO of course. On second thought, maybe "it depends" is the best answer.
Last edited:
andredossantos
Well-known
The answer to this question (and most others) is:
It depends
It depends
marcr1230
Well-known
Many things make a great picture - composition is perhaps necessary , but not sufficient. the photo must transfer emotion, the sense of what it felt to be there, or maybe to convey the essence of an individual or situation.
I'm trying to channel David DuChemin...
I'm trying to channel David DuChemin...
silverbullet
Well-known
Great portraits might look like landscape pictures...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/172746742/in/set-72157594175685831/
sara
Well-known
"Photography cannot bear the intellectual weight with which it is fashionable to burden it." - Bill Jay
I won't bash Ken Rockwell but I particularly don't like him because he's brainwashed one of my friends into thinking what makes a great photo.
When I speak to him about photography, the first thing he would tell him would be "You should read Ken Rockwell's site" or he provides me with a link that "Ken Rockwell says you should create black and white photos using this method".
and this is a guy who never looks at Cartier-Bresson or any of the greats, but only relies on Ken Rockwell's website 24/7 to justify his photography explanations. He expects all great photography to have a super sharp focus.
It sickens me sometimes lol.
I won't bash Ken Rockwell but I particularly don't like him because he's brainwashed one of my friends into thinking what makes a great photo.
When I speak to him about photography, the first thing he would tell him would be "You should read Ken Rockwell's site" or he provides me with a link that "Ken Rockwell says you should create black and white photos using this method".
and this is a guy who never looks at Cartier-Bresson or any of the greats, but only relies on Ken Rockwell's website 24/7 to justify his photography explanations. He expects all great photography to have a super sharp focus.
It sickens me sometimes lol.
Last edited:
gho
Well-known
I would not bash Mr. Rockwell either. I read that article too and in a certain point he is right. If you want many clicks on your thumbnail the composition should be in such a way that the eye is drawn into the picture. He says that detail is not important, but the overall image counts. Well, personally I do not like the thumbnail approach, I rather find it quite refreshing, if there is a fine detail in the picture that is not obvious at first sight or even not visible in the thumbnail.