What makes a "good" photograph?

[ronocnikral]

I recently provided some feedback for some images here on pixtus. And while I was reminded that giving honest feedback here is a thankless task and generally not worth the time, I was piqued to what the community's thoughts are on what makes a good photograph. The intent of the thread is to share thoughts, quotes and examples of what makes a good photograph.

To me, a good photograph needs to have some connection to the viewer. This is why aunt Gertrude's vacation photos from last summer are not usually interesting unless you have been there. Of course the connection can be many things- perhaps it reminds the viewer of their childhood, perhaps the viewer appreciates a well executed image etc.

So, what makes you think a photograph is good? And why?

[KJ Smith]

I have always been told that a good photograph will elicit an emotional response.

I think that is just part of the equation.

Its hard to lay down strict rules.

For instance, I think a good photo should be technically correct.

However there are photos whose emotional content overcomes their technical faults.

It will be interesting to see what other folks say.



Miss your old neighbors dog yet?.....

[ronocnikral]

Oh Moses...how my heart yearns for thee...

So does the community need to generally accept the image as "good?" for instance, I noticed an abstract image someone shared recently. Most people didn't like it, but a few people liked it, and they were people who had attempted something similar. Personally, I thought the image was a mistake.

[Killjoy]

You gave your honest feedback. That's what was asked for.
If they couldn't handle it, they shouldn't have asked for it.

[ngoduyviet]

I think it's different for different people. To me, a good image needs to have some thought process put into it. You might get lucky and get a good image by accident every now and then, but a crappy image heavily processed to look "artistic" is just a crappy image.

Digital DSLR evolution provides an affordable way for people to get into photography nowaday, but too many of them get butt hurt when real cc was given so I've stopped giving them, unless I feel that the person(s) were really interested in learning.

[duronboy]

I think this thread should be titled, "How to listen to critique like an adult"

Looking back at the few posts where I asked for critique, and received it, I regret that I offered any excuses, and not just thanks and acknowledgement. I understand critique is sometimes as difficult to give as receive, and often think of what parents used to say to children before pulling out the belt, "This is going to hurt me more."

It shouldn't be difficult to receive critique, if one is really interested in how their work could improve. But, sometimes we take an image that so moves us we can't see any of the flaws others see, instantly. We can't put any restrictions of what kind critique we receive, if we want truly honest feedback. I'll be honest, sometimes I know I don't want honest feedback, I just want to feel good about myself. I know, very childish, indeed. However, when I ask for critique at those times, I ask it of family members or non-photographers. If I come here and ask a stranger for their time, I value it, and take it for what it is: unbridled honesty. People who don't appreciate that now, will, later on when their photography isn't getting anywhere.

[groovyone]

Originally Posted by duronboy

I think this thread should be titled, "How to listen to critique like an adult"

Looking back at the few posts where I asked for critique, and received it, I regret that I offered any excuses, and not just thanks and acknowledgement. I understand critique is sometimes as difficult to give as receive, and often think of what parents used to say to children before pulling out the belt, "This is going to hurt me more."

It shouldn't be difficult to receive critique, if one is really interested in how their work could improve. But, sometimes we take an image that so moves us we can't see any of the flaws others see, instantly. We can't put any restrictions of what kind critique we receive, if we want truly honest feedback. I'll be honest, sometimes I know I don't want honest feedback, I just want to feel good about myself. I know, very childish, indeed. However, when I ask for critique at those times, I ask it of family members or non-photographers. If I come here and ask a stranger for their time, I value it, and take it for what it is: unbridled honesty. People who don't appreciate that now, will, later on when their photography isn't getting anywhere.

There is a thread like that: Understanding Criticism - Alan Briot - RECOMMENDED READING

[auddii]

Originally Posted by ronocnikral

Oh Moses...how my heart yearns for thee...

So does the community need to generally accept the image as "good?" for instance, I noticed an abstract image someone shared recently. Most people didn't like it, but a few people liked it, and they were people who had attempted something similar. Personally, I thought the image was a mistake.

I'm not sure a picture is ever a mistake, if anything it will be a learning experience.

However, whenever someone calls something "artistic" or "creative", it seems like they already know that it's flawed or that the general public may not like it but they really do. There are some very "artistic" shots that I've taken which I really like how they turned out, but it was an experiment.

As for that huge deal made about the most expensive photo ever sold, I didn't like it. I understand that there was great skill involved and blah, blah blah. However, I find the photo dreary, and I never would want it hanging in my house. Another reason why art is subjective.

However, I do think there is a huge difference between that and a photo with a major flaw, which you critique, and someone says you don't understand their creativity. But again, that's fairly subjective, but if you don't want to hear it, don't ask.

I don't know. I've become a little bitter recently about CC.

[duronboy]

Originally Posted by groovyone

There is a thread like that: Understanding Criticism - Alan Briot - RECOMMENDED READING

I think that should be required reading for anyone choosing the CC option when starting a new thread.

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by duronboy

Looking back at the few posts where I asked for critique, and received it, I regret that I offered any excuses, and not just thanks and acknowledgement.

That is all you need to do.

Thank them for the time they spent.

Then, once you get past what they said, or tried to say, think about it.

There may be something to it......

[texxter]

Photography is such a broad field that answering the question of what is a "good" photograph is a complex and multi-faceted endeavor.

Because photography ranges from photojournalism to nature, from medical applications to fashion and beauty, from underwater to commercial still life, from art on the wall to weddings, etc, etc, I don't think it's possible to have a single definition of "good" that applies equally well to all these subfields.

Does a good bridal portrait share the same qualities of good underwater photography?

I'd say that there may be one or two aspects in common, but for the most part quality and interest of an image is going to depend on the purpose, the audience, and also the current trends at the time. What was a good portrait in 1895 would not necessarily be a good portrait given today's tastes and technologies.

A good portrait image, for example, is one in which the photographer reveals some interesting aspect of the subject, in some unique or creative way, with a strong response from many viewers. I just made this up, I have no idea if this matches most people's definition of a good portrait - as "good" is by itself a subjective quality in many ways. I don't give a lot of weight to "technical correctness" because this is not generally what makes an image remarkable - lack of it does make lots of images useless.

So I am clueless as to what makes a photo a good photo, but generally I respond better to certain images, images that make me think, feel or get curious about something.

[ronocnikral]

understanding that all photography has different audiences, and there are different categories, is there a photography that can make a majority appreciate it? is there some category, such as landscape, which appeals to the majority?

it's seems here at pixtus, we unknowlingly come to a general consensus if an image is bad or not. sometimes the consensus is explicit and sometimes it is implicit. but, it seems we, as a photography community, judge on technical execution, and perhaps we should look more at the emotion. So, does an image have to be exectued well technically to appeal to both photographers and the general population?

[DigMe]

Originally Posted by auddii

As for that huge deal made about the most expensive photo ever sold, I didn't like it. I understand that there was great skill involved and blah, blah blah. However, I find the photo dreary, and I never would want it hanging in my house. Another reason why art is subjective.

I'm not a big fan of it either though I should note that in reality it's 6ft x 11ft so maybe I would feel different in person. I don't know. It was probably a big fan of Dursky in general that wanted a Dursky no matter which one. Or maybe someone just wanted bragging rights.

I think I get his artistic vision in that picture and I have no problem calling it "art" but I don't think it would ever be in my collection at any price.

brad

[auddii]

Originally Posted by DigMe

I'm not a big fan of it either though I should note that in reality it's 6ft x 11ft so maybe I would feel different in person.

Didn't realize it was that big. Definitely not going in my house then since I don't have a wall it would fit on.

[parrotmomma]

To me, photography has always been a window into the soul of the person who took the photograph. It should tell a story, make you think, make you feel... something. Good or bad. In my opinion, this is the greatest photograph ever made. I first saw it when I was a young teenager, and in many ways, it influenced the course of my life (I work with Special Ed kids now) Almost 40 years later I can't look at it without a tear in my eye and a lump in my throat. Technically perfect? Maybe not. But what it says, what it conveys, is so powerful in so many ways. And that was what W. Eugene Smith meant for it to do.

The Legacy of W. Eugene Smith – The Camera as Conscience

Per forum rules do not attach photographs that are not yours. Provide a URL to the site if you wish but don't attach photographs if you don't hold the copyright.