What's a good photograph?

[Buddha]

First off, I am not trying to start a fight. There is a reason for asking and I don't have the answer.
I went to a photography show last week with 100 photos chosen to be shown.
A number of the prints cut off body parts or were not clearly focused. Four of them were the size of postcards and portrayed objects at a distance. Some of the subjects were offcenter with no connection to the rest of the image.
Online galleries which I have looked at are not comparable in their choices of images.
I know enough about two of the judges to respect them.
At this point I am still wondering what it takes to make a good photograph since I would have deleted most of what I saw.
How do you know? Who makes the rules? Should I even care?

[ggeen]

I will start with "Should I even care?" Only if you plan on entering your photographs in future contests. As far what makes a good photograph, there are entire books written on that subject. That is my cop-out answer. There are some very good people on this forum who I hope will attempt to answer your question.

My overly simplistic answer is if the photograph is aesthetically pleasing to you, it is good enough for you. Your standards may be higher or lower than someone else.

[Buddha]

I understand what you are saying. I'm not thinking about entering photos in shows, but I would like a standard of comparison. What I saw doesn't match any standards that I know of, so I'm looking for help.

[ggeen]

Here is a great place to get started. Digital Photography School...
Composition

[Steve Balderrama]

Does the subject captivate you in some way? Thats the first requirement to being a good photograph. All the technical stuff serves the subject, and while there are plenty of "rules", they are subordinate to the needs of the subject.

In other words, it's hard to judge whether an arm cut off is bad or good without actually seeing the photo. I've also seen plenty of technically good yet emotionally dead photo's hanging on exhibit walls.

Are there online pic's of the exhibit or samples of it somewhere that we can see and comment on?

[hue-e]

photography is art. art has many styles. comparing vastly different artistic styles is near impossible in my opinion. how do you compare say, realism to impressionism, or cubism, or hell, graffiti for that matter?

[kenw]

In a purely commercial sense: if it pays, it plays. ie: if the customer likes it enough to pay for it, it is good. Crass but that's reality.

In an purely artistic sense: Here it really doesn't matter because success is solely in the eye of the beholder, whether they are the artist, the viewer or the patron. 100% subjective and no rules need apply.

Since 99.99% of photographs are somewhere in between, then the answer to those is: it depends....

[BenE]

An artists once told me he painted 3 kinds of artwork
1)what judges liked
2)what he liked
3)what his paying client liked

If he painted something that satisfied all three, he considered it "good".

In my case, now, I go for #3, and #2, but not always in that order. I do not worry about #1 anymore because all the nice plaques on my wall never get a mention from my customers.

[Buddha]

I'm very sympathetic to not worrying about what judges think, but I would still like to have some understanding of what they look for to choose show winners. It's not guesswork because it's too consistent. Is there a secret school for judges somewhere? Why is what they chose so far out in left field, IMHO, from what I can see in any other circumstances?

[ChrisTX]

I can put up one of my photos for what's not.

[Steve Balderrama]

your question is still way too open-ended. Without seeing the photo's you are referencing, or similar ones, it's impossible to know what the judges might have been responding to.

There are a million rules of composition, exposure, use of depth of field, lighting, etc out there for creating a "good" photograph, but none of it means anything without considering the subject of the photo. For example, while the "rule of thirds" is a worthy basic compositional rule, the subject may work better with something different. Judges don't automatically just measure out rules of third on the photo to judge it, they look at how the overall composition works in regards to the subject and whether the composition serves the subject or not. "proper" exposure is a generally good rule, but some subjects may work better under or overexposed.

[Tom]

I'll let you know when I see it.

[Steve Balderrama]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Some of the subjects were offcenter with no connection to the rest of the image.

lets take this statement for example. In most cases, a directly centered subject is actually less aesthetically pleasing than an off-centered one, hence the "rule of thirds" and the "gold ratio" composition rules, etc. You say with no "connection" to the rest of the image, but what was the rest of the image? Thats a vital piece of the puzzle. Is the rest of the image merely background? Another Person? an Object? Is there only one subject, or multiple? If these are winning images, then the judges must have considered "off center" to be essential to it's being a good photograph for some reason.

[Buddha]

It's not that the subject is off center. Subjects should be placed deliberately, not randomly. Its that it's off center and appears to just be one of several objects in the image because it doesn't relate to the rest of the image.
EG's
Guitar player in a chair, half of bottom of his foot is cut off. Rest of the scene is a barroom. Guitar player is the largest object. Is it therefore the subject and why was the foot cut off?
Green anaconda. Several coils showing. Image is fuzzy and hard to see as if the shot were taken through dirty glass.
Agave plant. Close up so no background shows and only half of plant is visible. Not one leaf is in focus.
What's with those?
I've done the snake and the agave plant so I know other treatments of the subject are possible.

[iCe]

I took a good photograph once. My conscience got the better of me and I gave it back