Pherdinand
the snow must go on
A few things that typically make a good image
-Number of viewsof the image in the RFF gallery
-Noctilux
-Boobs
-Number of viewsof the image in the RFF gallery
-Noctilux
-Boobs
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
OK to give a more serious answer,
I think you ask about "good" image but actually you talk about "popular" or at least fifty-fifty.
i think what makes an image good/popular:
-it helps if it is a bit out of ordinary for the avg visitor's culture/environment; mundane scenes for western viewers are images of western lifestyle (malls, shopping streets) which will be very, very difficult to make stand out
-it helps if there's a central subject that makes it stand out even in tiny postage stamp format (otherwise nobody clicks at it)
-it helps if that central subject is alive
-it helps if that alive central subject has boobs
I think you ask about "good" image but actually you talk about "popular" or at least fifty-fifty.
i think what makes an image good/popular:
-it helps if it is a bit out of ordinary for the avg visitor's culture/environment; mundane scenes for western viewers are images of western lifestyle (malls, shopping streets) which will be very, very difficult to make stand out
-it helps if there's a central subject that makes it stand out even in tiny postage stamp format (otherwise nobody clicks at it)
-it helps if that central subject is alive
-it helps if that alive central subject has boobs
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
OK just messing with you 
On a serious note,
i was looking at the seventy-something images Magnum was selling this round, and besides the obvious interesting ones, there were some from the most famous and well-known, that mad me say mwaah. Like the usual antoine d'agata image, or the sunbathing martin parr shot. Without context (not sure if there was any), i find it very, very boring- and nothing special.
I never read long captions and context - an image should stand on its own or in a series, with a title at max - i find descriptions forced. Often titles are also forced, trying to push the viewer in a direction he is not heading will just make him stumble and drop out.
And in general photographers are crappy writers/talkers (with a few exceptions).
Back to what makes them good, in an absolute sense, i think there are per
subject category a few well established "rules" on what can improve and make an image pop. But only statistically speaking. There will be a few which will have the opposite and still be very good shots, and there will be (more than) a few which will not be helped by those golden rules.
A few of my own rules that i observed (me looking at images):
-Typically, a blurred image of a good subject will be bad.
-Typically, a sharp / technically great shot of a boring subject will be bad.
-Typically, a blurred image of a boring subject has a great potential to be good.
-Typically, a sharp image of a good subject has a great potential to be bad.
-All the above is irrelevant and the image is by definition good, if it has boobs.
On a serious note,
i was looking at the seventy-something images Magnum was selling this round, and besides the obvious interesting ones, there were some from the most famous and well-known, that mad me say mwaah. Like the usual antoine d'agata image, or the sunbathing martin parr shot. Without context (not sure if there was any), i find it very, very boring- and nothing special.
I never read long captions and context - an image should stand on its own or in a series, with a title at max - i find descriptions forced. Often titles are also forced, trying to push the viewer in a direction he is not heading will just make him stumble and drop out.
And in general photographers are crappy writers/talkers (with a few exceptions).
Back to what makes them good, in an absolute sense, i think there are per
subject category a few well established "rules" on what can improve and make an image pop. But only statistically speaking. There will be a few which will have the opposite and still be very good shots, and there will be (more than) a few which will not be helped by those golden rules.
A few of my own rules that i observed (me looking at images):
-Typically, a blurred image of a good subject will be bad.
-Typically, a sharp / technically great shot of a boring subject will be bad.
-Typically, a blurred image of a boring subject has a great potential to be good.
-Typically, a sharp image of a good subject has a great potential to be bad.
-All the above is irrelevant and the image is by definition good, if it has boobs.
willie_901
Veteran
"The contest between form and content is what, is what art is about— it’s art history. That’s what basically everybody has ever contended with. The problem is uniquely complex in still photography."
“Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form. And, you know, in terms of content, you can make a problem for yourself, I mean, make the contest difficult, let’s say, with certain subject matter that is inherently dramatic. An injury could be, a dwarf can be, a monkey—if you run into a monkey in some idiot context, automatically you’ve got a very real problem taking place in the photograph. I mean, how do you beat it?"
Gary Winogrand
Arbitrarium
Well-known
For me personally:
If it's people photography then a great photo is one that miraculously captures a one in a million moment that nobody else captured or perhaps even noticed.
For still life, it's all about bold, interesting composition.
If it's people photography then a great photo is one that miraculously captures a one in a million moment that nobody else captured or perhaps even noticed.
For still life, it's all about bold, interesting composition.
willie_901
Veteran
For contemporary, on-line viewing, keeping in mind how to compel viewers to click on a thumbnail-sized photograph is important.
In the past the same could have been true to influence art editors and marketing directors who were selecting images from contact sheets or transparencies.
Dogman
Veteran
I am very fickle. I don't have a dedication to any particular attributes that make a picture good, bad, interesting or dull. The only yardstick I have for judgement is my own work and whether or not I would have been happy with the photo had I taken it.
I start out giving the photographer the benefit of the doubt unless it is obvious their competency is questionable. I expect he or she intended the photo look the way it does technically. That gives me a general impression. For instance, I don't like photos that are "soot and whitewash" in contrast and I don't like photos that are flat gray tones. Of course, it is possible for a photo to overcome these impressions--remember, I'm very fickle.
Beyond that, I'm more interested in form than subject matter. I like the presence of and relationships of objects, geometry, shapes, colors or tones. But since I'm fickle, a strong subject can overcome a weak design.
I start out giving the photographer the benefit of the doubt unless it is obvious their competency is questionable. I expect he or she intended the photo look the way it does technically. That gives me a general impression. For instance, I don't like photos that are "soot and whitewash" in contrast and I don't like photos that are flat gray tones. Of course, it is possible for a photo to overcome these impressions--remember, I'm very fickle.
Beyond that, I'm more interested in form than subject matter. I like the presence of and relationships of objects, geometry, shapes, colors or tones. But since I'm fickle, a strong subject can overcome a weak design.
cz23
-
Not to get all psychological or anything, but I think this dilemma goes well beyond photography and what makes a good photograph. What I hear in these sentences is a struggle for Meaning.
I think as we pursue photography (or any creative discipline) more deeply, raising that question is inevitable. The arts can raise the question, but I don't think they can answer it.
As uncomfortable as that impasse is, I view it as positive, a potential steppingstone to greater awareness and deeper creativity. I don't have any answers for you, and I really believe that's a personal journey. But I'm pretty sure they won't come from someone else's understanding of what makes a "good" photograph.
John
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Anything that resonates with another human being ... that feeds me emotionally and makes that image totally worthwhile.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'll try to keep it between "good" picture and rff.
What is "good picture ", first? "Wow" factor makes picture "good"? So, you are looking at the picture and all what comes from you is "wow, wow, wow, wow,wow". And few days later you'll see the same picture and same is happens to you? "Wow,wow,wow,wow,wow". Or isn't it? You just say "wow" once. How "good" is the picture if you could just say "wow" and this is it? This is question at least for me. I'm primitive. This is the "wow" picture:
And what is good picture for me, not just "wow"? HCB, GW have good pictures. But I'm too primitive to observe it within few seconds and "wow". Their pictures are good for me only after I spent time to look, analyze, think and then pleasure comes. And days, weeks, years later I would look at it and find, learn something new. And those are good pictures because they are deep, not just shallow "wow".
Now, how many at RFF are capable to produce good pictures? How many have the gift to see, draw, get close, wait? How many at RFF have practiced enough and learned?
You can't take good picture just like what. You have to practice. Sure, were are some at RFF with theory what film camera will teach you and quick. It will, you will be able to take sharp, evenly exposed pictures. It was good enough for magazines and for income. It is nothing but boring now. You could get it on auto with many cameras, no film is needed. But where are plenty on RFF who thinks what sharp, well exposed image is good. Next group above this one also checks for WB and dust spots...
But! It is gearheads forum after all and sharp, well exposed pictures with correct WB are important for us as example of what gear could do.
Look at the Gallery. Same photogs produce with same gear most interesting photos. Buying, switching, reviewing is not going to give good pictures. All you will get is sharp, well exposed pictures. Would you get on new kayak and just get on Crazy River? No, you'll get your new kayak on the Calm Lake. And only later after you will knew everything about kayak and paddle you will put your life dependence on it. Same with photography. GW and HCB used only one camera type and very few lenses. Like three maximum. They knew everything about camera and lens. And it was and is important. You are not going to knew your camera and lens after few shots and you are not going to get good pictures.
Where is complicated thread among two RFF patriarchs about one guy who spend twenty years on gear chasing and at the end realized it was not good for photography, he started to vandalize his cameras.
Less gear, better pictures are. Want good pictures? Buy less cameras, lenses, bags, half-cases and so on. Buy photography books and exhibition tickets. Watch on-line what good photographers have to say. Practice like maniac. You have to live by photography, but care less about trying, updating gear. Good pictures will come then.
What is "good picture ", first? "Wow" factor makes picture "good"? So, you are looking at the picture and all what comes from you is "wow, wow, wow, wow,wow". And few days later you'll see the same picture and same is happens to you? "Wow,wow,wow,wow,wow". Or isn't it? You just say "wow" once. How "good" is the picture if you could just say "wow" and this is it? This is question at least for me. I'm primitive. This is the "wow" picture:
And what is good picture for me, not just "wow"? HCB, GW have good pictures. But I'm too primitive to observe it within few seconds and "wow". Their pictures are good for me only after I spent time to look, analyze, think and then pleasure comes. And days, weeks, years later I would look at it and find, learn something new. And those are good pictures because they are deep, not just shallow "wow".
Now, how many at RFF are capable to produce good pictures? How many have the gift to see, draw, get close, wait? How many at RFF have practiced enough and learned?
You can't take good picture just like what. You have to practice. Sure, were are some at RFF with theory what film camera will teach you and quick. It will, you will be able to take sharp, evenly exposed pictures. It was good enough for magazines and for income. It is nothing but boring now. You could get it on auto with many cameras, no film is needed. But where are plenty on RFF who thinks what sharp, well exposed image is good. Next group above this one also checks for WB and dust spots...
But! It is gearheads forum after all and sharp, well exposed pictures with correct WB are important for us as example of what gear could do.
Look at the Gallery. Same photogs produce with same gear most interesting photos. Buying, switching, reviewing is not going to give good pictures. All you will get is sharp, well exposed pictures. Would you get on new kayak and just get on Crazy River? No, you'll get your new kayak on the Calm Lake. And only later after you will knew everything about kayak and paddle you will put your life dependence on it. Same with photography. GW and HCB used only one camera type and very few lenses. Like three maximum. They knew everything about camera and lens. And it was and is important. You are not going to knew your camera and lens after few shots and you are not going to get good pictures.
Where is complicated thread among two RFF patriarchs about one guy who spend twenty years on gear chasing and at the end realized it was not good for photography, he started to vandalize his cameras.
Less gear, better pictures are. Want good pictures? Buy less cameras, lenses, bags, half-cases and so on. Buy photography books and exhibition tickets. Watch on-line what good photographers have to say. Practice like maniac. You have to live by photography, but care less about trying, updating gear. Good pictures will come then.
x-ray
Veteran
Here's a question I've been thinking about lately, should you praise a photo that you know is bad or should you be honest?
I ask that because I see some really bad photography on the internet getting what I think is undeserved praise. While it might encourage someone it also lowers the bar on what people perceive as good. It sets a lower standard. I've talked with other photographers and artists and the universal feeling is that most people no longer know what quality photography is.
A long time friend who recently passed away after a 70 year career as a commercial photographer said he'd never seen the quality of photography so low even in the professional world. I fully agree.
This won't set well here but here's what DOES NOT make a great picture. Fussing for days over what the perfect lens is, owning a Nikon, Canon, Leica, Fuji or any other brand will not make your photos better. A $200 neckstrap, $250 half case or a $650 shoulder bag with leather trim won't make your images better. No amount of expensive camera gear will make you take great images.
Great work comes from within you not from a piece of cold metal and glass. You have it in your soul or you don't.
This isn't to say you can't make pictures that you enjoy and enjoyment is what it's about for most people. You're not making a living with your camera you're making enjoyment.
Many of us that do this for a living or are accomplished have a vision of what we want in the end before we lift the Valera to our eye and we know how to translate that vision into a real image. As a professional that's what clients pay me to do.
Doing the same old photo over and over that everyone else has shot won't get attention. How many images of someone texting on a street corner or buss have you seen. How many sneak shots of someone's back or someone walking have you seen. You need to think original images and seek out those situations. Be original in approach to your subject and do something original and fresh.
I ask that because I see some really bad photography on the internet getting what I think is undeserved praise. While it might encourage someone it also lowers the bar on what people perceive as good. It sets a lower standard. I've talked with other photographers and artists and the universal feeling is that most people no longer know what quality photography is.
A long time friend who recently passed away after a 70 year career as a commercial photographer said he'd never seen the quality of photography so low even in the professional world. I fully agree.
This won't set well here but here's what DOES NOT make a great picture. Fussing for days over what the perfect lens is, owning a Nikon, Canon, Leica, Fuji or any other brand will not make your photos better. A $200 neckstrap, $250 half case or a $650 shoulder bag with leather trim won't make your images better. No amount of expensive camera gear will make you take great images.
Great work comes from within you not from a piece of cold metal and glass. You have it in your soul or you don't.
This isn't to say you can't make pictures that you enjoy and enjoyment is what it's about for most people. You're not making a living with your camera you're making enjoyment.
Many of us that do this for a living or are accomplished have a vision of what we want in the end before we lift the Valera to our eye and we know how to translate that vision into a real image. As a professional that's what clients pay me to do.
Doing the same old photo over and over that everyone else has shot won't get attention. How many images of someone texting on a street corner or buss have you seen. How many sneak shots of someone's back or someone walking have you seen. You need to think original images and seek out those situations. Be original in approach to your subject and do something original and fresh.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Which photographer's work do you like to look at? What do you like about it from a formal point of view, from a content point of view, and from an emotional point of view, etc?
So, this is only a technical forum? What makes you believe that?
Composition and Content aren't as fun as lens attributes?
People who have moved beyond the same old technical talk...
charjohncarter
Veteran
Stephan Shore, William Eggleston, Todd Hido, Bill Owens, Martin Parr and more all take perfectly banal photos. They all have success, some great success. I don't know; you figure it out.
Banal subjects photographed in interesting ways.
PKR
Veteran
X-ray, I don't know if you've seen this flicker / Cartier-Bresson critique, but it's worth it's weight in "instagram food photos"??... Na
https://petapixel.com/2011/07/13/why-you-shouldnt-give-too-much-weight-to-anonymous-online-critics/
I've seen comments on here such as.. well I got this camera and I take a lot of bad photos, but I'm having fun. I would say to that person, you are on the right track. You know the difference between the good stuff and the bad. Many never seem to get there. So, why not try for some that you think are leaning more toward what you think are good?
One post said that making art photos was hard and less fun as I read it. I never thought that. I've made a lot of work photos that weren't great fun. But, never stuff I didn't have to do for money. Those, good or bad .. successes or failures, are always fun. I have many more failures with personal photos than winners. But, that's normal for me. It's still fun or I wouldn't do it.
This thread reminds me of the street photo thread I posted a while back.
kuuan
loves old lenses
the photographer himself feeling good about a photo or anyone viewing it getting something off it is enough justification, also for posting it here.
a photo can be art but photography is a very wide, endless field, doesn't have to be art and still can be a good photo.
what really would frighten me was if there was a consensus about what is a good photo and which is bad, which only would derive from what has been celebrated in the past, next inevitable consequence would be censorship.
sounds to me like a real good point to get beyond the walls of the guarded pallaces, to start playing, to have fun, and to possibly even arrive at art
a photo can be art but photography is a very wide, endless field, doesn't have to be art and still can be a good photo.
what really would frighten me was if there was a consensus about what is a good photo and which is bad, which only would derive from what has been celebrated in the past, next inevitable consequence would be censorship.
sounds to me like a real good point to get beyond the walls of the guarded pallaces, to start playing, to have fun, and to possibly even arrive at art
John Bragg
Well-known
I guess those Photographers are just famous for being famous. Fame brings recognition and (like the Kings new clothes) it takes someone with a fresh attitude and uninhibited by the fame to say that those photos are bunkum.
It occured to me that we also print a lot less than we used to and hence images viewed on a screen maybe lack the sense of value that is inherent with a well printed photo. I also know that with a print, we can place it on a viewing board and get used to it over a longer time frame. Roger Hicks has mentioned this before I am sure. If you like one of your photos, place a print on a well lit viewing board and see if you still like it in say a weeks time. Good photos will pass this test.