What makes a good photo - who is right?

[razor777]

For me this is an interesting topic; I read many threads on TP where people offer crit and advice on how to improve submitted pictures. One, no two of the main crits given from fellow photographers is the use of HDR and selective colouring - that is, limit their use or simply don't do it.

However, when shown to a customer or the 'public in general', they simply can not get enough of it and in the majority of cases these types of pics sell, sell and sell.

So my question is - have we become that immersed in the technicalities of what (we think) makes a good picture in terms of composition, light and other variables that we've actually lost sight of what a good picture actually is? For me it is when 'Joe Public' looks a photo, gives a sharp intake of breath and then says 'bloody hell thats good!' while I think 'Well its alright but..' and in the majority of cases it is when we've employed some effect that some consider tacky such as selective colouring/HDR or just bumped up the saturation and contrast to eye watering levels.

.. and this leads me to my second question; whose view is more important - fellow togs giving crit or actual customers / joe public because the views seem to wildly differ between the two.

Mark

 

[grum]

Depends on whether you are judging by artistic or commercial standards. Just because something sells doesn't mean it is aesthetically good - see any number of rubbish pop artists that sell lots of records.

 

[AliB]

I can see what you mean Mark. I can't stand selective colouring when applied to weddings but I think that's because the majority of images I've been subjected to have been bad images in the first place, hardly rescued by the use of selective colour.

Yet there are images where I really like it. Mark Cleghorn did a series with a little boy in blue jeans and only kept the blue and they really worked. The latest Alfa Romeo ad has an image where only the lipstick is coloured and it works well too.

There are also purists who don't like any PP at all and people who should be handcuffed to keep them from a keyboard and mouse.

But the bottom line is simply, does the image work? What was the intent and is it fulfilled?

 

[dazzajl]

whose view is more important

For me that's one of the easy ones. If it's for a client, then their view is all that counts. For stock, it's all about the sales and if it's just for your own pleasure, then nobody elses opinion matters at all.

 

[SarahLee]

I don't think it's a matter of who is right or wrong . . . just a question of personal taste and the opinion you should go along with depends entirely on your purpose in producing the photograph.

If you're producing something for sale and the customer wants a particular effect then give them what they want . . . or if it offends your artistic vision, don't - but accept that you're losing out on a segment of the market.

If you're producing something for the simple pleasure of producing an image, art for art's sake then please yourself with what you do and as long as you're happy it really doesn't matter whether anyone else likes it or not.

 

[Parklife]

.. and this leads me to my second question; whose view is more important - fellow togs giving crit or actual customers / joe public because the views seem to wildly differ between the two.

Mark

Just like any activity attracting such a wide range of folks with forums to match there will be people who cannot see fault in an image whilst others could write a list.

I suppose by posting an image you are opening the door for someone to come in and spread their mucky footprints all over it, but at the end of the day if the image is selling it's the customer that should be listened to.

 

[razor777]

For me that's one of the easy ones. If it's for a client, then their view is all that counts. For stock, it's all about the sales and if it's just for your own pleasure, then nobody elses opinion matters at all.

I totally agree yet I hear some users on this site claim that they would never do a particular photo style even if the customer demanded it - which seems most odd.

Grum:

That doesnt make much sense, they are still selling records so someone must like them. Anyway on the photography side, these effects seem to be pleasing with the vast majority of joe public in complete contrast to your fellow togs so the analogy doesn't hold up.

AliB:

But the bottom line is simply, does the image work? What was the intent and is it fulfilled?

And thats the core questions - however opinions seem to wildly differ between us togs and the public in general.

 

[Peter10d]

It is a very interesting point you raise. I think at the end of the day, as togs, we are striving to reach a certain standard, which is the unwritten law in the world of togs. Once you can appreciate what the level is, all other pics just look like near misses or snaps.

 

[roofowler]

Good question and it stumped me until I realised that the problem is the blurring of photography and digital manipulation. At least in the darkroom under an enlarger it's still "painting with light" so a film print that's been dodged and burnt might closely resemble an HDR shot, but I wouldn't mind calling it a good photograph because of the skill that's gone into it and it's still photography. An HDR image produced in photoshop is just not the same, it's painting with pixels rather than light so I'd have to change the question to what makes a good image because I'm not sure you can really call a digitally altered image a photograph, but I know in the real world none of that really matters, half the time it's hard to tell a film shot from a digital shot and what's been altered or not.

 

[chris321]

My point of view is pretty close to what's written above. If you're selling the photos you're taking, then the customer is right. They want selective colouring, HDR etc, then who cares in the slightest what some fellow photographers think, they're not the ones paying for it

If it's not photography for sale, then it's art, and there IS no right or wrong. People's opinions are just that, opinions. The advice they give is how they would alter the photo to appeal to their tastes. There is no right and wrong, there can be a majority who prefer one way, but that just makes it 'the norm', and not necessarily wrong!

But if HDR and selective colouring were to burn in hell for all eternity, I'd find some way to cope I'm sure

 

[razor777]

Good question and it stumped me until I realised that the problem is the blurring of photography and digital manipulation. At least in the darkroom under an enlarger it's still "painting with light" so a film print that's been dodged and burnt might closely resemble an HDR shot, but I wouldn't mind calling it a good photograph because of the skill that's gone into it and it's still photography. An HDR image produced in photoshop is just not the same, it's painting with pixels rather than light so I'd have to change the question to what makes a good image because I'm not sure you can really call a digitally altered image a photograph, but I know in the real world none of that really matters, half the time it's hard to tell a film shot from a digital shot and what's been altered or not.

Thats an interesting point, so you think photography (i.e. film based photography) and digital image manipulation (a digital camera at default still manipulates the image to some extent for example ISO) are two exclusive paths? I would say (digital photography) is rather a progression of film photography. Film photography still has its place and in a lot of instances has still not been surpassed but digital imaging is still in its infancy and will only be a matter of time before image processing can match anything film photography has to offer.

 

[magicaxeman]

I would go as far as to say there is no right or wrong at all, what makes a good photograph is a subjective matter and will vary with each individual, nor should anyone conform to what their peers feel makes a good photograph, its about exploring and finding your own niche so to speak.
I know on one site, notorious for being hard to get published on, I have seen photographs that have blown me away, but equally ones I though where so appalling they belonged in the bin at best, but that's my view,how I see them and I do not feel that my view should over ride all others and thus consign said photographs to a bin somewhere.
The simple fact is that someone out there somewhere will like what someone shoots and the way they process, there is room for all and none are necessarily more "right" than another.

 

[Markk]

I think it depends on what level you are on.
My wife picked out one of my photos I took when we were on honeymoon in Turkey. It was a pic of some ruins taken up close with a wide angle. She loved the pic and wanted to get it printed right away.
I saw an extremely crooked horizon and an opportunity to give it a little sharpening.

 

[roofowler]

Thats an interesting point, so you think photography (i.e. film based photography) and digital image manipulation (a digital camera at default still manipulates the image to some extent for example ISO) are two exclusive paths? I would say (digital photography) is rather a progression of film photography. Film photography still has its place and in a lot of instances has still not been surpassed but digital imaging is still in its infancy and will only be a matter of time before image processing can match anything film photography has to offer.

I would actually say it's an alternative to film photography rather than progression, taking the picture is very much the same but the processing for film and digital is so different. In the darkroom you can obviously make a print that resembles the scene accurately and just like photoshop you can add in elements that weren't there or alter the image beyond recognition but it's still usually based around the idea of using light to create an image which is lost with a mouse and a screen.

 

[Snap_Happy]

I think the thing to remember is that other photographers will know what they're looking at - if they see an over-processed image, to them, that hides the photograph. To an artist, the important thing seems to be the intent, and the thought behind it, whilst to "joe bloggs", the image is the final product, and everything else is irrelevant!

Horses for courses I guess.

[p.s., yes, they're massive generalisations, I know, but it's just to explain my point - viewpoint is everything, and no viewpoints are wrong!]

 

[PsiFox]

10 What makes a god photograph??

20 Depends on the photograph and the person looking at it.

30 It's like all the threads "which camera to buy".

40 If we all liked the same thing there would only be one camera, obviously there isn't.

50 So as there are many "good Photographs" it must be down to individual likes and dislikes.

60 Return to line 20

70 repeat.

 

[Lunaticsamurai]

There are technical rights and wrongs and then there are no right or wrongs.

You can crit a picture that is out of focus or badly framed, but when it comes to buying a picture for the simple reason that it looks good, then the person paying for it is right and no one else.

Every single member on this site is entitled to thier opinion on what is good or bad in an image, but none of them are right or wrong.

I can find fault in pictures that 99.9% of people love, but then i can also love and image that 99.9% of people hate.

 

[artona]

I would not shoot something just to make a client happy but fortunately I find enough clients to earn me a living who like my style as it is.

Shoot for yourself not for others but do learn from others

stew

 

[razor777]

I saw an extremely crooked horizon and an opportunity to give it a little sharpening.

And that is the key point, I've done and thought exactly the same for some photos while 'joe public' state its an amazing picture. I think the point I'm trying to make is that sometimes we get too involved in all the little technicalities in what should make a good picture we just dont see the fact that despite the technicalities - its actually a good picture.

However, what amazes me is the huge chasm about what we as photographers is/should make a good picture and your average 'none photographer' looking at someone elses work.

 

[jakeblu]

I would actually say it's an alternative to film photography rather than progression, taking the picture is very much the same but the processing for film and digital is so different. In the darkroom you can obviously make a print that resembles the scene accurately and just like photoshop you can add in elements that weren't there or alter the image beyond recognition but it's still usually based around the idea of using light to create an image which is lost with a mouse and a screen.

I am struggling to understand this concept you have offered. Both capturing of the image is light related either on film or on a sensor. It is the reproduction of the capture which differs, digital on a screen or chemically with the film. Neither process could claim to better or purer, just different.

Steve

 

[razor777]

I am struggling to understand this concept you have offered. Both capturing of the image is light related either on film or on a sensor. It is the reproduction of the capture which differs, digital on a screen or chemically with the film. Neither process could claim to better or purer, just different.

Steve

Yes, I remember an article in a photo magazine a few years back where some photographer was famous for frying his negatives in the dark room with some amazing results. At this point in time I'm not sure digital imaging can match the effect but I still think digital imaging will eventually be a progression from film photography albeit in many years time.

 

[Doog]

This is an interesting question and one that I had thought of posting myself as a new member.
I take a simplistic view on this. If people find a picture pleasing on their eye then it's a good picture. Those of us with more exacting standards (ie Togs) will look for more than just an interesting subject matter. So yes the eye is in the beholder so to speak. On the other hand, I've seen some techically good pictures which don't cut it for me because I didn't find the subject matter that great. For me, a great picture is one that takes me to places, to see unusual objects, or tells me an interesting story. It shows me a moment in time through someone elses eyes and makes me wish I had been there.
HDR or selective colouring can be good if used in the right way but it is slightly gimmicky as it's usually used to produce a "Wow, look what he just did" reaction from the viewer. As with all creative stuff though there are some brilliant examples and I would never slate anyone for producing such images. Each to their own.

 

[EdinburghGary]

However, when shown to a customer or the 'public in general', they simply can not get enough of it and in the majority of cases these types of pics sell, sell and sell.

I had a fairly horrid photoshoot today, I found the models a challenge to work with and I felt I was getting nowhere. I thought I was wasting my time, but provided the service as I rightly should, and tried my hardest.

I did an instaviewing after the shoot, and I was extremely proud when it transpired just how happy the two ladies were with the photos. One of them cried and cried, then they had insane bursts of laughter, then cried again. It was a roller coaster of a day for them, and they were singing my praises on the way out the door. As a result of my fears during the shoot, I extended it by about an hour and had a WILD session. They were football daft, so we recreated a penalty kick session with a soft ball, we done the goal scoring celebrations, we had a blast....we finished with some pile ups, and it ended their shoot on a high. The result of this little bit extra effort was the icing on the cake as it resulted in an order of 60 photographs - one of my biggest yet.

To cut a long story short - if a good photograph is one which evokes emotion, then my photos, today, were awesome. I can see so many issues, some of which IMO should have been deal breakers....yet they loved them.

So my question is - have we become that immersed in the technicalities of what (we think) makes a good picture in terms of composition, light and other variables that we've actually lost sight of what a good picture actually is?

Yup, of course we have. We see it in here all the time. Fix that, fix this, minor niggles....Sometimes you just wanna look and enjoy.....on the other hand, this is a place for crit, so its unfair to put a negative spin on it.

.. and this leads me to my second question; whose view is more important - fellow togs giving crit or actual customers / joe public because the views seem to wildly differ between the two.

Both are extremely important. I could not survive long doing shoots as I did today - I found it extremely difficult to motivate myself to my usual levels. And obviously, the customer HAS to like the photos.

 

[Musicman]

10 What makes a god photograph??

When they have one showing Higgs Bosons at CERN, I believe.

Or possibly the Turin Shroud.

 

[Daysleeper40]

I always find it very interesting when you look at a photograph that gets high praise from almost everyone and you just don't like it...

Like the boy on a bicycle picture by Cartier-Bresson:

Clicky Here

I understand that compositionally it is good but beyond that it holds sod all interest for me. I don't think that makes me "wrong" but you will always get someone who is appalled that you can't see the genious and will not let you have your own opinion...

 

[EdinburghGary]

I always find it very interesting when you look at a photograph that gets high praise from almost everyone and you just don't like it...

Like the boy on a bicycle picture by Cartier-Bresson:

Clicky Here

I understand that compositionally it is good but beyond that it holds sod all interest for me. I don't think that makes me "wrong" but you will always get someone who is appalled that you can't see the genious and will not let you have your own opinion...

That photo is frankly sublime, however as you said you are perfectly entitled to have a different viewpoint.....if we all liked the same...etc etc

 

[chris321]

Like the boy on a bicycle picture by Cartier-Bresson:

If it makes you feel any better, it doesn't do anything for me either! Maybe I just don't 'get it'. Maybe I'm just a philistine, who knows

 

[Cyb]

That photo is frankly sublime, however as you said you are perfectly entitled to have a different viewpoint.....if we all liked the same...etc etc

may I ask why? what is so 'sublime' about this photo?

because I too don't get it

 

[Tight Fart]

I don't like it either, should have either more or less blur on the cyclist.

One of my favorite photos that I have ever taken is technically poor, but I'd got up early one morning when the snow was down to try and get a photo of a Stag, I did get a pic,
but it was hand held at 1/40th sec at 300mm, makes me smile every time I see it.

 

[Voyager]

"Hyères, France" (1932) is an arresting image of a boy whizzing by on a bicycle. The camera literally arrests his speed as he rounds a curve, which elegantly echoes a flight of stairs spiraling down. "I prowled the streets all day," Cartier-Bresson explained, "feeling very strung up and ready to pounce, determined to 'trap' life – to preserve life in the act of living." One can almost see him roaming the boulevards, stalking his prey: juxtapositions that yield surprising epiphanies.

I suggest those who don't 'get it' read the article instead of just look at the picture!

But you still don't have to like it.

 

[Denyerec]

Was it Lenon who said "Don't be good, be popular" ? I don't remember.

One of Ken Rockwell's better pieces is his diatribe on the 7 levels of photography. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm)

A true artist doesn't care what anyone thinks, they pursue their art and their vision to the exclusion of everything else.

As for what is good art? You have the Tate, and the National, you have Carravaggio and you have Hockney. You have the Taj Mahal, and you an autumn sunrise.

You can't put art in a box; if a photo speaks to you then let it.

 

[SarahLee]

Another one who doesn't like it !!!
That's a really sexy staircase, and I love that part of the photograph. But it's totally ruined for me by the bicycle - personally I'd like to see it cloned out
Goes to show that everyone has their own likes and dislikes and much of what makes a "good photograph" is very subjective.

I think the technical merit of a photograph is slightly easier to define, but I still don't think it's as cut and dry as all that.

Take this hypothetical situation :

You're at an event to watch a major political figure speak. During the event the speaker is assassinated and you catch the moment on camera.
The photo is technically poor - slightly out of focus, underexposed and badly composed with heads in the way and people chopped off at the edges of the frame . . . however, the subject matter could well be enough to give the photo huge commercial value and for it to rate as a "good photograph".

 

[chris321]

I suggest those who don't 'get it' read the article instead of just look at the picture!

But you still don't have to like it.

Would it be controversial to say that the article is the kind of pretentious (only in my view of course) claptrap that I loathe about photography and art in general?! (I just like looking at pretty pictures)

I still don't get it. I'm definitely a philistine

 

[Cyb]

But if I have to read a book to understand the picture does that not take something away from the image?

I thought art was in the appearance not in the theory?

 

[inaneredstripe]

people try to hard to please others, instead of themsleves, sometimes.

 

[Voyager]

But if I have to read a book to understand the picture does that not take something away from the image?

I thought art was in the appearance not in the theory?

Try and explain 'what is art' without words.