what makes an image 'good'?

[back alley]

there are many images posted into threads here on rff.
most get no feedback or mention of at all.
some do and some get great praise.

i look at these images and sometimes the difference is very obvious...some images have a 'wow' factor, some are more subtle but just as good and some you wonder not only why did the photographer take the picture but why did he post it here?

my images occasionally get some very nice comments but mostly they go unnoticed and uncommented on and i'm trying to understand why but i think it might be good learning for many of us.

the more i look at images in general the more i ask 'why'...why did the photographer take that pic? i ask myself that more and more lately and i find i am shooting less & less. i don't know what i like anymore...street seems contrived, portraits are unexciting and landscapes are boring (all to me)...not only do i not know what is good i don't know what is interesting.
i would love some serious thoughts on this...

 

[PKR]

Rather than restrict it to a photo, why not ask about any flat art? The same qualities that make a painting good apply to a photograph. Forget the camera and think about the art..

 

[back alley]

Rather than restrict it to a photo, why not ask about any flat art? The same qualities that make a painting good apply to a photograph. Forget the camera and think about the art..

this is ok too...

 

[Darthfeeble]

One of the things that appeals to me is mood. The dark cloud shot of yours that I commented on has mood appeal to me. I seem to fall flat on the "story" in a lot of images and for some reason I can see good composition everywhere but in my own camera viewfinder.

 

[Ong]

I guess for me it is a mixture of three things.

-Does the photo tell a story on its own or as part of a series of photos (without the need for a large blurb to describe what's going on)
-It is aesthetically pleasing (cue in the rabbit hole of the whole ratios and balance and such I won't get into)
-Does it invoke some kind of internal emotion or connection

I know I'm in the same rut as you BackAlley where I feel like I'm taking less and less photos these days (and feeling generally uninspired by my surroundings these days)

 

[PKR]

Well, given good composition and technique, an image that's seen from an uncommon point of view usually will get some attention. Think about close-ups of the human face in a portrait. Or looking up at adults, and the rest of the world, from a child's perspective.

I took a snap shot of a neighbors dog that I knew as a puppy (she just passed on at 12). I took the photo from "dog world" ...that's about a foot and a half off the ground in this case. It's down where dogs see the world.

 

[Godfrey]

Photographers are amongst the worst people to ask these questions of, and are generally not very strong on critique critique.

I make photographs for many reasons, not always the same. I post for display photographs that I think others might enjoy without expectation of comments. Sometimes there are comments, sometimes not ... I always appreciate comments when offered but I don't wait around for them. I find interesting the diversity of comments when they appear—many see very different things than I see in the photos.

So what makes a good photo? Many different things at different times, depending on your intent and the execution of the photographs. For me, I like photographs that evoke a mood or feeling, that support some kind of story (not necessarily entirely on their own), or that expose something about the things we see that isn't always obvious. I like portraits that capture an instant's expression on a person's face, I like still life that captures motion in stillness or stillness in motion. I rarely shoot naturalistic landscape work; I see landscape as the context of the urban world I live in. I like to fit things into squares or stretch them into extreme oblongs; I like photos that have a great deal of emptiness in them or a great deal of complexity, that draw one in to become quiet. I like photos in which you can imagine time passing slowly or quickly, and the odd juxtapositions of life and not-life that reveal how alive the not-life can be while elevating the life to another plane. I like photographs that are well-focused, sharp, and naturalistic in their color, and I love photographs that are perfectly clean even though they are gritty and grainy, dark and contrasty.

Basically, I know a good photograph when I see it, and when I see it I can say what strikes me as good about it. But it is very hard to articulate what that is without the photo there in front of me without sounding formulaic and dead.

If you're having difficulty seeing and your photography is languishing, it is perhaps time to turn your eyes to something else for a while until your vision returns. I go for walks, ride my bicycle, watch motorcycle racing, and read books when I can't see. Invariably, something tickles my curiosity and I have to explore it with a camera again.

G

 

[jukka]

It seems obvious that photography differs from more traditional art in that virtually everybody is able do it at some level and post online.

And why not? It's a nice hobby. what is difficult is learning to edit your output and being critical of your own work. This of course is why we see a wide range of photos online.

I took a break from all this, and just recently found time to get back at it. What still strikes me odd is why often the more interesting stuff gets little attention and the obvious cliches and what not get praise.

I'm not talking about myself though, and no one in particular. And probably this forum is not similar to, say, flickr, in this respect. So I'm making a generalization here, but there seems to be some inner logic or hidden structures at play that I don't always get with social media and photography.

 

[Contarama]

When I get to feeling this way I go explore Ken Rockwell's site. Funny thing is...I am not lying. Even more funny I think it helps me out.

I think if we would all take the crappiest camera and lens we have and go out and try to see with it we would all be better served.

 

[PKR]

Well, Godfrey, I think if you want to look at good art, go to a museum. Most work that makes it into a museum is judged good. You may not like it (I don't know you so I don't have any idea) but, most art that sells at auction is "good". As for photographers not being able to "critique", I would say the good ones, the ones hanging in museums and galleries, can tell the difference between good and bad as they had to make "good" visual choices in the making of their good photographs. But, then today, anyone with a camera-phone is a photographer..

 

[BillBingham2]

For me, it's all about the picture evoking a feeling. Could be about what is going on, could be the technical mastery, on one thing every time, but better pictures evoke a stronger feeling in me.

I haven't gone out shooting in a long time. I find things to shoot that catch my eye. Could be a reflection, athe lighting of the sky and part of the dash board, could be my mother-in-law in a hospital bed. In the end, some evoke an emotion and stay, others get erased.

Wide range of emotions, but for me that's what is what makes it a good picture.

B2 (;->

 

[PKR]

When I get to feeling this way I go explore Ken Rockwell's site. Funny thing is...I am not lying. Even more funny I think it helps me out.

I think if we would all take the crappiest camera and lens we have and go out and try to see with it we would all be better served.

That would not sit well with many on here.

Here's a Rockwell quote you may have missed..


"This compact 24mm lens could be the only wide lens you ever need. I'm very serious: the more decades I do photography, the more I realize that my pictures today would be so much better if I would have shot with just the lens or two like this that I had decades ago, and spent my concentration and research time on learning how to take better pictures. Instead, like most of you, I also wasted most of the past couple of decades researching and buying more gear that I didn't really need and didn't do anything different than my gear did back in the 1970s."
from a 24mm Nikon lens review / Ken Rockwell. © 2009 KenRockwell.com. All rights reserved.

 

[PKR]

i don't know what i like anymore...street seems contrived, portraits are unexciting and landscapes are boring (all to me)...not only do i not know what is good i don't know what is interesting.
i would love some serious thoughts on this...

Joe, why don't you visit a museum or if you don't have one close, use a gallery site. There's a lot of photography on the "Camera Work" thread. Pick one or two painters or photographers and pick maybe five images each. Examine each image and record your thoughts as per like or dislike in a notebook. When your finished, look at your list for consistencies. For instance you may like photos of moving objects, cloudy skies, color images containing a lot of green.. and dislike still life images, the colors red and yellow..you get the idea . Do this a couple of times a week for a few months.. Keep a notebook and review your likes and dislikes.

I have a thing for flat horizons. I travel to places with them to make pictures.

If you truly find you don't like anything you see, find something more rewarding to do with your time. Buying a new camera won't fix this. Life is short.

Edit:
Just because a piece of art is good, doesn't mean you have to like it. But, you should know why others think it's good. I'm not talking about this forum. Stick to curated art for a while. People on this forum will think a photo is good because it's sharp or has great brokeh or was taken with a special lens. I think that's BS.

Best, pkr

 

[Chris101]

... People on this forum will think a photo is good because it's sharp or has great brokeh or was taken with a special lens. ...

Sure, because this forum is about making photographs, not criticizing, or even appreciating them, except as to how they were made. RFF is about having fun with photography. When I do a "serious" art piece using photography, there is some fun, but mostly hard work, and occasionally a bit of frustration. Who in their right mind would have a forum about that?

 

[Roger Hicks]

What makes a photograph "good"?

Everything.

Nothing.

The same picture may appeal enormously to one person; in another, evoke no more than technical admiration; and in a third, provoke total indifference.

Also, consider Dr. Johnson's observation: "Why, Sir, our tastes greatly alter. The lad does not care for the child's rattle, and the old man does not care for the young man's whore." I used to like Ansel Adams much more than I do now -- though in all fairness I still like Rodchenko -- and there are always new photographers to discover and work by photographers we already know to rediscover.

Finally, bear in mind that I provide some sort of an answer to this question every week in my column "Final Analysis". The fact that I can write a different column every week, drawing attention to different pictures and different aspects of pictures, suggests that there are very nearly as many answers to the question as as there are good pictures. Google "Roger Hicks Final Analysis" for examples, but here's a recent one: https://www.magzter.com/article/Photography/Amateur-Photographer/Final-Analysis

Cheers,

R.

 

[ForestCap]

To me it's very subjective to say an image is good or not.

 

[sleepyhead]

Pictures that I consider "good" (my own or by others) need to have at least a couple of interesting things happening, in my opinion.

I have an informal scoring system when I look at a photo:

• 0 interesting aspects = boring/not good
• 1 interesting aspect = OK
• 2 interesting aspects = good
• 3 or more interesting aspects = very good

By "interesting aspects" I mean, INTERESTING:

• Composition
• Light
• Subject
• Story / Feeling / Emotion / Mood
• Action or interaction between subjects
• Viewpoint
• Color palette / tonality

(Perhaps the list is longer - feel free to add aspects...)

Take almost any famous or recognized "great" photo and it will have at least 2 or 3 of these aspects. Think of NASA's "Earth rising over the Moon" (Subject, Story, Viewpoint), or Cartier-Bresson's man jumping over the puddle (Composition, Mood, Action). Most of Ansel Adams photos have interesting Light, Tonality, Subject (nature), and Composition.

Etc., etc.

Here is a photo of mine from my RFF gallery (I picked the one with the most views). I guess that it has the most views because it has interesting:

• Subject (floating head art installation)
• Interaction (man sitting on bench contemplating the heads)
• Tonality

 

[teddy]

Mmm... I'll be frank.

I have often thought and felt the same as you @back alley.

My thoughts are that many here in Range Finder Forum LOVE photography and photographic gear. Many just love the process, others like to talk. Many here want to learn technique and others just want to share photographs even if they are not technically good. Others just want to have fun - rant, talk gear - their favourite lens and experience and so on.

I'm learning about photography, so I love RFF because I want to learn more about technique and everyones experiences. So when someone is sharing an image they have created, I want to see the proof and also study the image if possible.

Honestly, many in RFF post images they have created that are technically not great. And many DO get validating posts on their images perhaps mainly based on their connections and friendships here at RFF - even if the photos are technically inferior to others. I have to say some of the photographs I've shared here is only to prove a point on technique, lens queries, etc. I want to help and share. Some here have taken the trouble to visit my Flickr site and have commented on my photographs or kindly commented, which I appreciate. I'm not a great photographer - I'm learning. Also, when it comes to photography - I'm not even achieving what I really want to do - I need more time.

I have to say, many here at RFF post photographs with great mood. That is what interests me most of all, but I do appreciate a moody photo more if there is great technical achievement in it too. For example - if someone has an ultra sharp lens - well, use it to the fullest. Show us a tack SHARP image. There is no point in having blurry images with a super duper lens. BUT, there are exceptions to this rule.

Every photographer has their vision - mood, stark truth, sharpness, reality, story telling, minimalism, surrealism, impressionism - or like many; just photograph images for a lens own sake! I have been there before.

I also have to add, many times I would log on to RFF to read from Mr Tom Abrahamson - I never knew him, but he was a man with a wealth of knowledge and I appreciated his friendly comments.

This is why RFF is fun and interesting, despite everyone's different abilities - we can talk photography. It's a place that can inspire.

I think the best thing you can do to enjoy photography is have a goal - what do you want to achieve, and then just get out there and shoot with your favourite camera!

I hope my comments gives you something to think about?

 

[peterm1]

To me it's very subjective to say an image is good or not.

I think this is pretty much right. But it also depends on the purpose of the photo. A good "art" photo will probably be different from a good "technical" photo for example. And then there are many types of "art" photos - some types I really cannot bring myself to like at all....because it does not appeal to my specific taste.

For example I am not a fan of Greg Crewdson's work. In general it is just not my style. He is more successful than I will ever be but even if his work is excellent technically and acknowledged as such by the international art cognoscenti I just do not get it. Are his photos "good". Apparently yes. But not to me because the concepts he displays in his images do not tug at me and make me want to look at them. Perhaps that is the key thing - do the images pull on your eyeballs? If yes then they are probably good photos (for you).

But we all have a different taste, hence it is hard to specify in general terms. I have written a few articles (published over at Steve Huffs site and at Peta Pixel) where I have written about MY take on what makes a good photo (at least in terms of the type of "good" photo I enjoy making). But having said that I expect many will disagree - or even if they agree that some of these photos are good they will still feel it does not suit them in terms of the type of "good" photos they want to make. And I am perfectly content with that.

Here are links if it helps.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/11/24/character-style-and-mood-in-photography-by-peter-maynard/

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/...-mood-in-photography-part-2-by-peter-maynard/

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/...-mood-in-photography-part-3-by-peter-maynard/

 

[sebastel]

i found roland bartes' essay "camera lucida" to be a quite enlightening discussion of this question. it's not an easy read, however ...

cheers,
sebastian