What defines a good photo?

[HaseebM]

Thanks William!

I think I made some headway as far as processing goes. I am giving below two examples, one before and after. Indeed I spent some time trying to use the various sliders on PP and Topaz to try and get somewhere close to pictures which have that 'pop' factor.

Before


After


Could be the second image is overcooked but I realize now processing vigorously does help and something I did not try earlier. My next move would be to process a few portraiture and group photos to see any discernible differences in each. Suggestions welcome.

[William W]

Suggestions welcome.

What is more relevant: the Sky - or the Water?
I think the sky is more relevant . . .




What makes a good picture? – ABSOLUTE relevance . . .


If the Photographer looks closely enough, there are many ‘absolutes’ in every picture: the trick is to see them before one releases the Shutter.

WW

[HaseebM]

I think I understand what you say William. I must be clear on absolute relevance and not get tricked into too many other factors. Thanks for showing this via re-processed image. If I am to go by the rule of thirds, I assume your image would be more relevant to that?

[StephenFoster]

Hi guys, total newbie (still waiting for my first DSLR to be delivered) and I can't comment much on the technical process of a great image but I come from software development and there seems a big similarity in process.

That is to say if you take the examples of subject matter, composition, execution and post processing as a pipeline then each step of the process build on the last. In software getting the early stages wrong will result in loads off effort in the latter stages and typically the results won't be satisfactory..

Seems to me that all the stages of photography are important but you need to try and maximise the step you're in to give the best result further down the line. Sure different subject matter will require emphasis in one step or another but ultimately it's difficult to put things back into the image..or time consuming at best.

Ramblings of a newbie, hope to change that someday.

[Wayland]

Beware of absolutes... They rarely measure up in reality.

[StephenFoster]

Absolutely agree

[William W]

I think I understand what you say William. I must be clear on absolute relevance and not get tricked into too many other factors. Thanks for showing this via re-processed image.

Your question asked “what defines a good photo?”

And there have been many answers to that question.
And I don’t want to argue with any of those answers.

For example: “being in focus” might be an answer to your question.
I don’t want to argue with someone who answers your question by writing “one way to make a good picture is for it to be in focus”.

But ‘being in focus’ has no relevance for this picture:


Portrait of a Woman in the Rain – Milan 2012

And in this picture, being in focus does indeed have relevance:


“Italian Passion” - Milan 2013

***

What I wanted to show by my example when I edited your picture was: you have a picture of a scene that contains many elements.

If we look at the image, as an empty space - there are TWO main ELEMENT AREAS in that space - the SKY and the WATER.

For me, the SKY had more relevance than the WATER.

For me, the sky was “absolutely relevant” to my viewing experience and the water was annoying me.

Hence I cropped the image to 2:1 aspect ratio and as a result my eyes were much happier.

I just chose two of the many elements in your picture - the balance of the sky and the water - and I choose what was ‘absolutely relevant’ and what was not . . .



There are many, many, elements to your picture: to make it the best picture it can be, it is my opinion that you must choose what is relevant and what is not relevant, between ALL of those many, many, elements which are vying for supremacy, one over each other.


***


My answer to your question, "what defines a good photo?" is: "Absolute relevance."


WW

[William W]

If I am to go by the rule of thirds, I assume your image would be more relevant to that?

Well - I think I understand what you are getting at.

I will explain it this way -

As I mentioned, when I looked at your image, the large mass of water was uncomfortable for my eyes: the sky was very nice - but the energy from the sky was being sapped by the large mass of yucky water.

So I chose to make your image into a different Aspect Ratio - into a 2:1 Aspect Ratio.
That is a TECHNICAL CHANGE which I made - but the technical change was predicated on what was relevant.

And, yes, when I made that choice to change the aspect ratio to 2:1, I knew (because of simple geometry) that the Sky:Water Ratio could also be easily made 2:1 - which then allows the horizon to concur with the "Rule of Thirds" - and yes I made the horizon sit, to conform to the Rule of Thirds.



BUT I did NOT begin my thinking by saying: "Oh what will define this photo as good - is if we obey the Rule of Thirds" . . .

I began my thinking by seeking out an element which was absolutely relevant in your photograph.


WW

[William W]

. . . but ultimately it's difficult to put things back into the image. . .

Sage.

WW

[HaseebM]

Very well explained with notable examples William and thanks again. Yes I would agree with you the cropped version appeals more and my attention is now focused on the full picture rather than one element at a time. I also understand your second post with regard to rule of thirds.

Stephen, thanks that's a good point you make about processing correctly at the early stages.

[AB26]

Hi Haseeb,

If I really knew the answer to your question I would have been a much beter photographer. I have asked myself the same question over and over again, “what really makes a good image”?
Looking at thousands of images, browsing the web for hours, trying to learn from what I can observe I have come to the conclusion there are basically three essential basic “ingredients” that make a good image. Lighting, composition and an interesting subject.

Photography is “THE art of painting with light”. Do not think of photography as art, think of it as a trade you need to master turning your skill into an art. Mastering THE art of painting with light you need to develop an eye to “SEE THE LIGHT”. You need to develop the skill of using the tools of your trade to capture that light in that moment in time. Light is the single most important ingredient for capturing a good image. Photographers do not “create images”. Computer operators “create images”. Photographers CAPTURE IMAGES painted in reflections of light.

An image need to be captured as close as possible to the final result you desire. You should not need to resort to complicated editing software to “reconstruct” your image in an attempt to “create” a good image. You cannot “create” a good image from a crappy capture. It is impossible for a welder to turn a bad weld into a good weld by doing lots of grinding. Shooting either RAW or JPG, you should never shoot with PP in mind. Always put camera skills above PP skills.

Light constantly changes during the cause of the day and the seasons. The temperature of light brings about different shades of colour. Seeing these shades of light and colour is an art and can be developed. How do you develop the skill to see the light? You need to see thinks rather than merely look at them. Look at your subject and SEE how the light falls on it, see the shape and texture created by light and shadows. SEE THE LIGHT!

In a studio environment the desired lighting effects can be created artificially. In the outdoors the desired lighting effect can also be created, to an extent, by using ambient light, reflectors and flash. With landscapes and wildlife photography you cannot “create” the desired effect unless you are skilled in using camera settings. Most of the time you need to wait for the light to paint the scene, to create the desired effect. PATIENCE!

Composition is the second most important “ingredient” of a good image. You need to study the guidelines of good composition and how to bend the “rules”.

“Lifting” your interesting subject out in the image and keeping it simple is the third ingredient in capturing great images.
Combining good lighting with good composition, having an interesting subject and you have a potentially good image.

Keep practicing and experiment with camera settings to master the skill in getting it as good as you can straight out of camera. A good image need very little PP to make it a great image.

[Manfred M]

One "trick" that I use when judging my own work is to look at the image and note the first thing I see. If it is NOT the subject, I will work to minimize it's impact. Often it is a leaf sticking in near the edge or a bright spot that grabs too much attention. Classical problems are the ones that Bill has mentioned; too much water (foreground) or sky. Changing the aspect ratio work well in this case.

[HaseebM]

Thank you Andre! Lighting has always been my concern and I keep searching for equipment as we discuss. I think I have received a fair amount of excellent tips and suggestions by fellow members here including yourself and really appreciate the time you guys have taken out.

I have a few pictures which I felt were good but now after reading all these replies, I have changed my mind. I would like to shoot some new one's and this time hopefully, try to understand the basics and learn its relevance.

[HenkB]

Take every opportunity to look at pictures. <snip>

Once you know what you like, start trying to work out why you like them. <snip>

Don't be afraid of trying to copy the pictures you like. <snip>


The only people that don't make mistakes are those that don't make anything.

You have already taken the most important step on that journey though, by recognising that there is something worth the effort of learning, and I wish you luck along your road.

Never truer words spoke. The only thing to add is to advise you to engage in the pursuit wholly in the spirit of play.

[drjuice]

Hi, Haseeb -


Lots of good ideas are in the thread you started, including your own.


I found, for myself, that taking three or four pictures of the same subject with RAW (when I started working with RAW) and then focusing on those subjects for a couple of sessions with my software to learn the different things I could do with that particular subject using the RAW processing software. Since I tend to take about four or five kinds of photos becoming familiar with how process these things becomes important for me -- macro flowers (both wild and domesticated), landscapes, historical structures, old/antique cars, and small and macro critters.


The consequence of this kind of learning is that I'm able to produce an image that's mindful of the properties of the subject I saw in the field WRT hues, saturation, and brightness relatively quickly because I've learned what to do to cause my RAW photo to come out the way I want. As a measure of how things come out, I find that I'm able to get my first cut processing done in my hotel on the night I take the pictures. I recently entered a picture in a contest and won (not on CiC ;~).

The total processing consisted of navigating to the directory where I selected the image (three scroll movements and one click to load the image into my software); then, I double-clicked on it to get software to open with the appropriate image and get me into editing mode, where I right clicked to pop up the panel of choices for editing. I slid down to Colors and then clicked the RGB color editing function. Next, I clicked and held the "red" slider and moved it about 20 clicks to the right. Then I saved the modified image with ctrl-S, entered the name for the modified image (one click and two slides). When the image was finished being saved, I pressed Alt-F4 and I was done. Total elapsed time less than 30 seconds. So, seven clicks and a few slides and I had my result.

But, I want to put the emphasis on the importance of practicing and learning which took many hours with only my sample images.


The other piece of learning this kind of thing is to start with something relatively inexpensive like FastStone ImageViewer or IrfanView. Why I suggest one of these is that starting with something like Photoshop gives you a ton of functionality, but when you're just starting out, it will drive you crazy because you have so many choices.


Good luck and don't hesitate to ask questions.


virginia

[FootLoose]

Always put camera skills above PP skills.

Absolutely. Well said, Andre.

[Manfred M]

Always put camera skills above PP skills.

Absolutely. Well said, Andre.

Let me disagree with that thought.

I don't want to downplay good camera skills, as I believe in those very strongly. But I also believe that there are many (if not most) situations where PP skills are every bit as important as the shooting skills. I think there are many instances where both skills are required in equal measure to get a really great shot.

The problem is that most photographers that I know, both pros and serious amateurs prefer spending time behind the camera and hate sitting in front of the computer working the image. PP is just as important to get a great image, as the capture itself.

If you look at the masters of the film days; they either spent time tweaking their negatives in the darkroom; Ansel Adams was certainly the master of this. If you look at others, for instance Yousef Karsh, who did not do his own, but rather employed a negative retoucher and printer to finish off what he started off with out of the camera.

I do shoot with PP in mind, not that that means I take shortcuts in capturing the image, but rather I know I can massage what I have captured into something far better. It’s a heck of a lot easier in the digital world than it ever was in the film days; but the learning curve is just as long (or perhaps even longer) than getting a great image out of a camera.

[HaseebM]

Thank you Virginia! I have started processing a few Raw files recently and am thinking of adding Topaz Adjust. I downloaded the trial version and find it offers easy editing for pictures. I understand what you state with regard to experimenting different ways to get the best out of an image. That's a good idea to shoot several images of the same object and try different processes.

[AB26]

Let me disagree with that thought.

Manfred,

We have to agree to disagree on many views about Photography.

If all of us were to agree on everything no one of us would ever rise above the average.

My PP skills are mostly limited to cropping and sharpening, guess that is why I feel so strongly about camera skills.

[Manfred M]

I think it's time that you expanded beyond the basics Andre; while these are essential tools that you mention, they can only take you so far. Most images need more than global adjustments.

The first thing that strikes my about your image of the plane is how we cannot make out the detail in the shadow areas and how they need to be brought out to balance out the image.



I haven't done a super job here, but this is what I mean.