what makes an image 'good'?

In general I like photos that have people in them unless its a landscape photo from somewhere exotic. Something other than what central Tx looks like haha.

From there, interesting composition, lighting, mood, story.... maybe its something I can relate to.

Super subjective.
 
John Bragg said:
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.
(...)
Click to expand...

They are famous because they were "first".

Back to the topic:
A Polish historian and philosopher Władysław Tatarkiewicz had a very nice definition of art: "Art is the reproduction of things, the construction of forms, or the expression of experience - if the work of reproduction, construction, expression is capable of delight, be moved or shaken."

I think that's the key to good photographs, to create works that delight, move or shake the viewer. Personally I'm one of those "mood" guys, trying to deliver with photos my feelings about the time&place. Of course it's a very personal thing, and with moden standards it's the relation between art piece and viewer that's art itself, the reception is different every time, but on some universal level of visual language I think it's possible to transmit simple feelings with photographs.

Also I try to work in series, even a short one has so much more narrative power than a single picture.
 
Sometimes it hard to look at our own photos and judge them. I'll often make a series of work prints and get my wife who's a retired creative director and fine artist to help me pick the best. She often gets me to look at her paintings and critique them for her. We're both completely honest with each other.

A good example of having difficulty looking at ones own work is an image I have in my RFF gallery. It's from my PJ days of a KKK cross burning. I shot this on assignment in 1971. I have several variations of this image, one that you see with the horseman and another without. The one without the horseman is sharper on close examination. It was only in the past 10 years that I printed the one you see in the gallery. I always had a mental block because of technical differences and there's only one neg like that one.

I finally made an 11x14 of it and put it side by side with the other print from the one without the horse. The impact of the image with the horseman was much much stronger. Both were good but the one I never printed was so much better. Also even on close examination I couldn't really tell a difference technically.

I always focus through a high magnification grain focuser. It's a lot like pixel peeping at 100% with digital files. I had been seeing a tiny section at 25x or more magnification. The neg was plenty sharp but even more important the content was much better than the other neg. I had been passing up on the superior image for decades.

Lesson learned, it's all about content. No one gives a flip if an image isn't a technical masterpiece if the content is strong. An image with strong content stands on its own. Too, over the decades I've passed on a number of superior images because of some silly technical thing. Never again.

A point to be made here, viewers judge our work on strength of content. Only we look in the e treks corners at 100% and say it's not sharp, can't use that one.

By the way, that image has over 26,000 viewings on RFF. in my gallery I have shots ranging from having been shot with a Pentax K1000 to 8x10, Rollei, Leica, Graflex, Minolta, Nikon and several other brands. None of the images indicate an advantage of one camera or lens over another. Each camera, even the cheapo K1000 delivered excellent results. I've said for many years that if there was a true advantage to one brand of camera and lenses or even a singular lens then all of us making our living with photography would use that camera or lenses. After all we're always trying to sliver superior work.
 
John Bragg said:
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.
Click to expand...

Henry Wessel, one of my favorites and not because he lives near me, takes TriX photos with a Leica and only 28mm Canon (LTM) lens. He develops them as he always has, BUT he waits sometimes years before he contact prints and then final wet prints. Boy, do I love this guy.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hen...17nUAhUByGMKHXvUAsYQ_AUIBigB&biw=1280&bih=929

He taught me (by video) the California style of flooded shadows, that for this part of the world makes them distinctive.
 
Joe you might need to explore some different subjects. Street might not be your thing. I'm always looking for new subjects. I commented to my wife recently I need to explore something new and fresh or something Ive not shot in decades. Im talking personal material. You need a change once in a while. Take a class at your local college. Take an art class and learn to draw. I took enough art classes fifty years ago for a minor in art but I can't draw. Where I live after 62 years old you can take classes at state universities and colleges completely free. I want to learn to draw because it'll expose me to fresh ideas and improve my hand eye coordination and expose me to new artists and ideas.
 
If you don't find anything interesting about taking pictures, there's not a lot of point in doing it, really. It doesn't matter what's interesting to us, you have to be interested.

Digital is, by nature, boring. A sentence, rather than something enjoyable.
 
Now there is an 'eye of the beholder' moment.

Crewdson may well be my favorite photographer. Perhaps it's due to a psychedelic upbringing, or maybe it's just the intense dreamlike quality all of his well known photographs have. I also admire how he rarely ever touches a camera.

It was an undergrad paper (plus slideshow) that I wrote on Crewdson that inspired me to take up photography as my main medium of artistic expression. Especially the series he did (and continues?) about the destruction of the home. The emotion in those pictures is palpable. I even enjoy his '70s pop-punk music (he's the guitarist on the right.) (Btw, my work looks nothing like Crewdson's.)

So I'm curious Peter, what about Crewdson hits you so wrong that you singled him out as the example of "not good" in a thread about good photography?

peterm1 said:
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/
Click to expand...
 
"So I'm curious Peter, what about Crewdson hits you so wrong that you singled him out as the example of "not good" in a thread about good photography?"

It is hard to say why I do not much appreciate his work. (And by the way I am just using him as an example that sprang to mind - I am sure that there are others too but he is so well known I can cite him and be confident that others will know what and who I am speaking about). I think Crewdson worked in film and it certainly shows in his work which has a kind of cinematically staged look about it. I think that this is part of the problem for me - knowing that in fact it is wholly staged, not real in the sense that it was taken from life. This makes it artificial and therefore lacking somehow. Shots like this remind me of the old joke - success is all about sincerity - once you can fake this you have it made. In this case it is not sincerity its about being able to get away with something artificial so long as it does not look and feel artificial (although I am sure he might say he wants it to look and feel artificial as that is his intention, its part of his "thing"- but sadly that is not enough for me).

He carefully sets his images up and takes them - in fact his role is more of a Director than a photographer and I believe these days he does not even take the image - that is done for him once he has directed the staging. In principle I do not object to that if it can be -pulled off but to me it has the kind of quality that far far too many Hollywood films have - big, expensive, highly produced and directed, technically brilliant but contrived and lacking soul or interest. I can admire his technical skill but there is nothing in any of his images that grab my eyeballs or more importantly, my heart for that matter.

To me a good image is often like poetry - you will be more likely to enjoy it if you can relate to it from your own life or have to invest yourself in interpreting it from your own life. And it must evoke a pleasurable emotion - nostaligia perhaps. Crewdson's work just does not speak to me on an emotional level in that way. I get that it works for others and that he is a big name. So who am I to say this? I am not even saying it to be critical of him, more as an expression of my own befuddlement I suppose over the same question that you have asked me - I have the same question about why I don't like him and others do, except its from the opposite perspective from you.

BTW on the subject of the role of nostalgia in making good images - watch this WONDERFUL WONDERFUL WONDERFUL clip from the series Mad Men in which Don Draper has to sell a pitch to the people of Eastman Kodak. It makes me blubby every time I see it. (The photos he shows incidentally, are of his own family and the wife with whom he has recently broken up so the pain "from an old wound " he speaks of is his own -blub,blub,blub. And while none of his images seem particularly good to me, to him they are obviously very, very wonderful images. That's how personal this issue of "good" images can be - and its why it can be so elusive to answer).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suRDUFpsHus
 
x-ray said:
Lesson learned, it's all about content. No one gives a flip if an image isn't a technical masterpiece if the content is strong. An image with strong content stands on its own. Too, over the decades I've passed on a number of superior images because of some silly technical thing. Never again.
Click to expand...

Exactly... nobody but photography forum geeks care about technical concerns.
 
Just recently discovered couple of Fuji X Photogs whose work I like a lot. It helps that they are not some photography superheroes either, heck one is actually a GP by profession: Kevin Mullins and Jonas Rask. I find most of their images fits the definition of good, falling short of fine art photography maybe.
 
jsrockit said:
Exactly... nobody but photography forum geeks care about technical concerns.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people on this forum who go on about how cool the "public" thinks their camera gear is. People stop them and ask ..etc.. You can't have missed these comments. I'm convinced that a lot of people buy cameras wishing approval or seeking attention from other camera owners. Oh, look.. the latest xyz camera with a yzx lens..

I can only speak for me; when I'm trying to work, I don't want to be bothered. I go out of my way to not attract any attention. Unfortunately, I use a tripod a lot, and that seems to draw watchers and questions. "How many megapixels is that?" It's a film camera.. "Do they still make film?" And on and on.

Some on here love this stuff. It's not about pictures, it's about cameras. So, I (qualified) sorta disagree.

There are some local "camera clubs".. not photography clubs. I've never been to one, but I bet it's more cameras than photography at most of them. People like camera toys. Like cars and golf cubs. They should buy more, it keeps prices down and produces lots of good used gear.

How's your new home?

pkr
 
some people say that many members here are too gear oriented, others say that there are too many low quality photos posted. then again even photos selected and offered by top photo agencies often are pointed out as not beeing good enough. It's only this or that artist that is good enough for this or that member.
Right, it is important to have personal tastes and preferances. But what would remain if we only had contents that are regarded as "right" by everyone? In the end the ongoing criticism about what others post of this public forum, to me, more than anything, feels being overcritical ( not to say closed minded or self assertive ).
 
kuuan said:
But what would remain if we only had contents that are regarded as "right" by everyone?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's the same with the weather being like the current government, always in the wrong.

I do think though that the OP had a point there, even if I'm paraphrasing him: At times all of this online nonsense around photography does seem frustrating.

In my opinion, there is no denying it. Gearheads who just have to post stylished shots of their many leicas can be annoying. But so are pixel peepers, people who have no idea whatsoever of an interesting shot, and those folk who laudly offer their non-constructive criticism of others output.

There's just inherently something wrong with non-professional (and sometimes professional) photographers when they come together. It might be tied to human biology 🙂

Yet, I agree with those who think that online communities (especially this) are valuable sources of information. The amount of stuff I have learned here is pretty tall.

edit: while I'm at it, I'll mention the most annoying category of an online commentator: the one who actually knows what might constitute an interesting shot but nonetheless praises terrible stuff out of -- I don't know -- hope for reciprocal affirmation?
 
PKR said:
There are a lot of people on this forum who go on about how cool the "public" thinks their camera gear is. People stop them and ask ..etc.. You can't have missed these comments. I'm convinced that a lot of people buy cameras wishing approval or seeking attention from other camera owners. Oh, look.. the latest xyz camera with a yzx lens..
Click to expand...

Very true...

I can only speak for me; when I'm trying to work, I don't want to be bothered. I go out of my way to not attract any attention. Unfortunately, I use a tripod a lot, and that seems to draw watchers and questions. "How many megapixels is that?" It's a film camera.. "Do they still make film?" And on and on.
Click to expand...

Understood. I've dealt with this, but I understand sometimes people are just trying to be nice and are curious too. I've had a few very attractive women do this to me too which wasn't as bad.

Some on here love this stuff. It's not about pictures, it's about cameras. So, I (qualified) sorta disagree.
Click to expand...

True, but I guess I was speaking more to the resultant photograph... when people look at photos, I think only geeks wonder about the camera and technical concerns. I've done it myself in the past, but I no longer care.

There are some local "camera clubs".. not photography clubs. I've never been to one, but I bet it's more cameras than photography at most of them. People like camera toys. Like cars and golf cubs. They should buy more, it keeps prices down and produces lots of good used gear.
Click to expand...

True.

How's your new home?

pkr
Click to expand...

I'm loving it. A totally new city to get to know and photograph surrounded by beautiful landscape as well. I don't make a lot of money here, but I have what I need. I guess I won't be going to the local camera club here with my old gear!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Life's little (photo) lessons - what are yours?
4 5 6
Replies
114
Views
5K
kxl
kxl
p.giannakis
Today i was told off
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
6K
Archiver
A
bulevardi
Talent vs Skills — where’s the magic coming from?
2
Replies
28
Views
817
chuckroast
C
B
Best Monochrome Options 2025 - Leica? Converted Files? Converted Cameras?
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
5K
Peter_S
Peter_S
B
The unloved Panasonic Lumix GF1
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
underlord
underlord
Back
Top Bottom