What the differance between a good shot and a great shot?

I don't have the experience (in years) you request but I think I have a reasonable answer.

Before the shutter
Planning and vision: A good shot is more reactionary and though vision can make up for lesser planning it is unlikely to be a great shot unless you get VERY lucky, there will always be a little something you wish were different. You also need to have a good enough understanding of your equipment to make your vision a reality.

Making a picture
As many people say, you make a picture, not take a picture. Similar to first point but you need to be deliberate, and make a statement/tell a story. To do this you also generally need to have at least a reasonable knowledge of the subject.

Emotion
Great picture elicit an emotional response in the viewer. This could a travel shot which makes you want to be there or a baby picture that makes you go awwww. Point is, there is a reaction that connects you to the story and captures the viewers attention.

Some people get really good at this and can do these things almost effortlessly, to the point where it appears they don't do much of this but that's because it becomes automatic.

I think there are few people that are happy straight out of camera. Especially if you're shooting raw you need to do the post work. Knowing how to crop properly is a skill in itself, after that you can ruin a good/great picture, I don't think you need lots of PP to make a great shot but I'd be amazed if you saw many that didn't have a 'little something' to make it better. That goes for film also.

Hope I've helped, even with only 2 &1/2 years of 'proper' shooting :)
 
Three seconds. If it captures the attention for more than three seconds, it's got something 'extra', in my opinion.
 
http://wwwSPAMfeed.com/expresident/most-powerful-photographs-ever-taken?s=mobile

A good guide
 
shaylou said:
And I'm going to add (what makes) a bad shot to this question as an after thought. I just wanted to pick the minds of the experienced (around 10 years or more) to get some direction.

Thank.
Click to expand...

That's easy! OPINION.:thumbs:
 
The subject. That's what makes or breaks a good picture.
 
Moos3h said:
Three seconds. If it captures the attention for more than three seconds, it's got something 'extra', in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that. A great shot is one you really want to explore rather than just look at. I think it can be subjective because different content will appeal to different people.
 
There are books dedicated to this question, if I were restricted to two words I would say Story & Emotion.
 
cjevans said:
I don't have the experience (in years) you request but I think I have a reasonable answer.

Before the shutter
Planning and vision:

------8<---------

Making a picture


------8<---------


Emotion

------8<---------
Click to expand...



A child with an instant throwaway camera could take a great picture without any of the above.. you cant plan a great picture... hmm well I suppose you can.. but its certainly not a requirement..


My answer to.. what makes a great picture is.... You will know the answer when you take the picture :)
 
"Good shot" or "great shot" just sounds like most of the critique posted on here :D
 
kestral said:
That's easy! OPINION.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was going to say, for once I read the whole thread instead of going to the bottom and answering. One persons 'great' shot may be another persons average. I would bet we've all got 'great' shots somewhere on the hard drives but until someone recognizes the greatness in their opinion you'll never know they're so good.
 
KIPAX said:
You will know the answer when you take the picture :)
Click to expand...

Very Zen - I like it :)

As to the original question, well if you think only people with 10 years experience have the credibility to answer it then this is not the question you are looking for...
 
More than 10 years with cameras but I'm not sure if they count as experience ;)

Me and my good lady almost always have a different favourite in a set.

I think that subject-matter can play a part in making a picture appeal. Then there are pictures which are 'commissioned' to fit a brief (how on the mark are they).

Some technically superb pictures get mediocre responses and vice versa. Sometimes bright saturated colours do it for people yada-yada-yada.

I reckon that if you could disect 'bad' and 'good' photos and come up with common qualities that could be used as rules, then there'd still be too many exceptions to those rules and there'd still be disagreement as to whether something adheres to the rule or not.

I suppose that when 'practising' photography, try to avoid things that you have recognised to have made your pictures poor, pursue the things that you have recognised to have made your pictures good - other people's input can develop your judgement.

I think that it is very much an 'organic' process and relies so much on the viewer, fashion, expectations etc. that hard and fast rules can't be applied.

But I do reckon that the more you know and understand your equipment and can use it 'second-nature', then the more you can employ your artistic eye and seize the moment.

crofter said:
Haven't got a clue, I'm still trying to work out how long a piece of string is.
Click to expand...
2x where x = the distance from one end to the mid-point ;)
 
:thinking: The amount of decimal points on the cheque :thumbs:
 
Luck and/or planning.
 
Wish here was a like button, couldn't agree more to the personal preference comments. Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. For some it is sharpness, some like abstract, for others it could be symmetry.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Composition and/while catching the moment.
Click to expand...

The greatest exponent of the decisive moment never (AFAIK) allowed anyone to see the negative strips, so many of his decisive moment shots could (speculation on my part!) have been one of many shots of the same scene, with only the best seeing the light of an enlarger! His composition wad generally quite good though (HCB, in case anyone's wondering).
 
HoppyUK said:
The subject. That's what makes or breaks a good picture.
Click to expand...

I expected more from you bud :D

LIGHT - as in direction, quality, amount then subtler things like colour temp, shaping, separation, etc.

Any subject however amazing in crap light gives a poorer shot than the same subject in good light - learn to find and work with light and you're well on your way :)

Dave
 
The difference is a good shot pays £250 a great shot pays £10000. How good is any photo? as good as the amount of money you can get for it that's always the test.The rest is just opinion.:thumbs:
 
kestral said:
The difference is a good shot pays £250 a great shot pays £10000. How good is any photo? as good as the amount of money you can get for it that's always the test.The rest is just opinion.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Are you saying hobbyists with no interest in selling pictures can't take a great shot ?
 
kestral said:
The difference is a good shot pays £250 a great shot pays £10000. How good is any photo? as good as the amount of money you can get for it that's always the test.The rest is just opinion.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Although funny, so not true. I know people that have many great shots under their belt but have never sold a shot. But I did lol on the comment.
 
Nod said:
The greatest exponent of the decisive moment never (AFAIK) allowed anyone to see the negative strips, so many of his decisive moment shots could (speculation on my part!) have been one of many shots of the same scene, with only the best seeing the light of an enlarger! His composition wad generally quite good though (HCB, in case anyone's wondering).
Click to expand...

Id imagine he had a few frames of the moment slipping away after he either got it or missed it ....its just not possible for him to have several extra poor frames of a single moment. ..not quite getting you here/

Its a photographers foresight that gets the shot of the moment isn't it. Sometimes luck but mostly its all about knowing what's likely to happen next while quickly building a composition for the shot that's about to get snapped.

Id imagine it was nearly always his first shot that got the moments, that's mostly the only way it can be I feel. :thinking:
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
Are you saying hobbyists with no interest in selling pictures can't take a great shot ?
Click to expand...

The problem with the original posters question is,that it is always someones OPINION that decides wether a shot is great.The question it's self requires proof that a shot is great and as long as it is just opinion that is the only evidence tendered, it is subjective and individual.So Granny is going to tell her Grandson "that's a nice photo", as are people with that sort of disposition. I have had 40yrs of seeing other peoples photos and other people seeing mine and the only GREAT(what ever that means?) shots I have taken are the ones that put hundreds of pounds in my bank account.That way opinion does not come into it.
I have found that editors of magazines/newspapers,Joe public will all tell me that my photos are great BUT when I say would you like to buy one to put on your wall or publish in your mag,it's not really that great after all.
This business of "that's a great shot" in it's self I find a bit silly now,it is somewhat embarrassing when the budding photographer get's his photos out and starts showing them around "Oh that's a good one and that one".Do they really mean it? What does GREAT mean?:shrug:
 
kestral said:
The problem with the original posters question is,that it is always someones OPINION that decides wether a shot is great.The question it's self requires proof that a shot is great and as long as it is just opinion that is the only evidence tendered, it is subjective and individual.So Granny is going to tell her Grandson "that's a nice photo", as are people with that sort of disposition. I have had 40yrs of seeing other peoples photos and other people seeing mine and the only GREAT(what ever that means?) shots I have taken are the ones that put hundreds of pounds in my bank account.That way opinion does not come into it.
I have found that editors of magazines/newspapers,Joe public will all tell me that my photos are great BUT when I say would you like to buy one to put on your wall or publish in your mag,it's not really that great after all.
This business of "that's a great shot" in it's self I find a bit silly now,it is somewhat embarrassing when the budding photographer get's his photos out and starts showing them around "Oh that's a good one and that one".Do they really mean it? What does GREAT mean?:shrug:
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the majority of 'news' shots that sell for £10k+ are muzzy celeb rubbish.

Examples from the last twelve weeks are the Duchess of Cambridge shoot and the guy that grabbed Russell Brand and Gerry Haliwell together.

On the flip side, you've got high production commercial photography that is frequently overwhelmingly bland.

Money, more often than not, has nothing to do with the quality of the photograph at all; qv Andreas Gursky.
 
My point is that IMO, a lot of his "decisive moment" shots (I'm thinking of the guy jumping over the puddle type thing) were set ups and he only published the one that's perfect in his eyes. NOTHING wrong with that but maybe rather than a decisive moment, he should have called them "the best in a sequence"?

Probably was the first shot in that sequence - after all, rapid fire is hardly a Leica's speciality!
 
What the differance between a good shot and a great shot?

The eye of the viewer.
 
A great picture stirs something inside. It speaks to us and envokes emotion. This will be a combination of the subject and light.
 
Nod said:
My point is that IMO, a lot of his "decisive moment" shots (I'm thinking of the guy jumping over the puddle type thing) were set ups and he only published the one that's perfect in his eyes. NOTHING wrong with that but maybe rather than a decisive moment, he should have called them "the best in a sequence"?
Click to expand...

Ah right I get you, maybe he should have I agree.

Still, non candid charade aside, does that make his appraisal in using those words less effective as a means of his expression? ... picked from a pile or snapped as a one off, its still the moment itself that is important not how it was gathered.

why am I arguing this? :D :thinking:

Nod said:
Probably was the first shot in that sequence - after all, rapid fire is hardly a Leica's speciality!
Click to expand...

No thats true! lol ... the second shot is always going to be too late, moments are fleeting right ...and anyway burst mode is pointless in the hunt for a moment as your pretty much blind when firing off so it aint going to help!
 
I prefer to look at it as a friendly discussion than an argument - I think we're generally in agreement and just "arguing" over semantics!

Enjoying the Laverda or has it been garaged for the winter? Unfortunately, my Royal Enfield has had to be garaged for a few months - I've had to surrender my license after a brain operation :(
 
kestral said:
The problem with the original posters question is,that it is always someones OPINION that decides wether a shot is great.
Click to expand...

Surely it really is that simple?

You and I could look at the same photo.. I could think its great and you could think its rubbish.. isnt it that simple.. its down to opinion? its not money.. mags will pay thopusands for a poor shot because it shows a cebeb with boobs out.. thats not great thats apportunist.

I put a picture into a local club compo.. when the pic was shown to the photogrpahers you could hear the reaction. suprise and smiles and lots of good comments.. it was a very bright picture of football mascots all jumping a fence.. all the photogrpahers loved it and lots said so after..

But the judges of experts ripped it apart :(


What makes a great picture is opinion on the picture and we all have different opinions.. its got nothing at all to do wiht how much you can sell it for... IMHO :)
 
Very true, Tony.

Look at Cath Wales's boobs out shots - I don't think anyone could argue that they were good piuctures but I'm sure the scum that took them made quite a few bob out of them, Although I hope his legal fees ate all of it up and he's been left peniless!
 
Moos3h said:
Three seconds. If it captures the attention for more than three seconds, it's got something 'extra', in my opinion.
Click to expand...

That covers it in my opinion.

There are a million reasons you might stay longer than 3 seconds, but if you do, it's a good shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top