What defines a good photo?

[Wayland]

Very interesting question...

I have said many times that I can teach anyone the techniques of photography but I cannot give them the "eye".

A good subject is important but not essential. Proof of this comes from wonderful pictures taken of really mundane subjects by great photographers.

Good technique is important but not essential. Proof of this comes from great pictures taken by absolute beginners with simple cameras.

A good eye for a picture is essential. Proof of this comes from technically perfect pictures taken of fantastic subjects with top notch equipment that are really awful.

I've yet to read a book on composition that gives you the eye. They explain "rules" but also tell you that those rules can be broken.

As an example I have just read a superb book written by some very talented professional photographers but the chapter on composition was just recycled "rules" which degenerated into "art speak" whenever they tried to explain which rules to use or break.

The truth of the matter is that you can train your eye but nobody can do it for you.

Take every opportunity to look at pictures. Books, magazines, galleries or the Internet. First of all find out what you like and what you don't like. Your likes will not necessarily be the same as other people's. I used to use a scrapbook for this but that was long before the Internet became so visual.

Once you know what you like, start trying to work out why you like them. What are the common factors? How do they make you feel? Stuff like that.

Don't be afraid of trying to copy the pictures you like. You probably won't get exactly the same results but you will learn an enormous amount by trying. It's called inspiration and artists and photographers do it all the time, both consciously and unconsciously. By the time it is unconscious, people will call it your style...

This will not happen overnight, we live in a World that expects instant solutions but some things still cannot be rushed I'm afraid. You will take hundreds of pictures if not thousands and get a few gems in return. As time goes on, with practice, you will take less and get more but there will always be some that don't quite make it.

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.

[jcuknz]

The essence of a good photograph is that it ends up meaning something to somebody, all the rest is irrelevant technicallity. There are many photographers, to give them the courtesy title, turning out technically superb garbage of no meaning to anybody except themselves. They are happy in what they do so we should not knock them BUT!

In x4 you have an editor fully capable of handling the technical side of things when you learn how to fully use it and if you want the back-up of raw then go for it and shoot 'jpg plus raw' if your camera is capable of this but most of the time you will find the jpg is all you need.

My preference is to take and produce realistic photographs so my attitude to editing is that it has to 'look right' after what I have done ... though that ignores the huge field of photographs that 'look wrong' but 'look good' ... we are all dependant on our viewers

EDIT ... Sorry I forgot I wrote that to you yesterday

[dubaiphil]

I'd also suggest some light reading:

The Photographer's Eye
Perfect Exposure
The Photographer's Mind

All three by Michael Freeman

[dan marchant]

1. Composition
2. Lighting
3. Timing
4. Technical execution.

How much of each you need will depend on what type of image you are trying to capture. It is perfectly possible to have a badly lit image that is still a great image, or one that isn't perfectly sharp and in focus. But generally the better each of the above elements of the image are the better it will be. It is of course possible to capture a great photograph unplanned, but it is rare. If you want to do it repeatedly you need to be able to clearly identify what you want to photograph, why you want to photograph it and then how best to do that using the above.

[HaseebM]

I guessed as much, Phil. Let me try out some pictures and post here later, perhaps tomorrow being Sunday. Thanks.

[HaseebM]

Very interesting question...

I have said many times that I can teach anyone the techniques of photography but I cannot give them the "eye".

A good subject is important but not essential. Proof of this comes from wonderful pictures taken of really mundane subjects by great photographers.

Good technique is important but not essential. Proof of this comes from great pictures taken by absolute beginners with simple cameras.

A good eye for a picture is essential. Proof of this comes from technically perfect pictures taken of fantastic subjects with top notch equipment that are really awful.

I've yet to read a book on composition that gives you the eye. They explain "rules" but also tell you that those rules can be broken.

As an example I have just read a superb book written by some very talented professional photographers but the chapter on composition was just recycled "rules" which degenerated into "art speak" whenever they tried to explain which rules to use or break.

The truth of the matter is that you can train your eye but nobody can do it for you.

Take every opportunity to look at pictures. Books, magazines, galleries or the Internet. First of all find out what you like and what you don't like. Your likes will not necessarily be the same as other people's. I used to use a scrapbook for this but that was long before the Internet became so visual.

Once you know what you like, start trying to work out why you like them. What are the common factors? How do they make you feel? Stuff like that.

Don't be afraid of trying to copy the pictures you like. You probably won't get exactly the same results but you will learn an enormous amount by trying. It's called inspiration and artists and photographers do it all the time, both consciously and unconsciously. By the time it is unconscious, people will call it your style...

This will not happen overnight, we live in a World that expects instant solutions but some things still cannot be rushed I'm afraid. You will take hundreds of pictures if not thousands and get a few gems in return. As time goes on, with practice, you will take less and get more but there will always be some that don't quite make it.

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.

Those are some very good examples and points you make Wayland. Most of the time I seem to be in a hurry to click photos and things like rule of thirds etc., are forgotten, well at least where they matter. I should try to re-organise this and post some pictures for some more insight and helpful criticism. Thank you.

[HaseebM]

Thanks jcuknz. I intend to try Raw first, more to fully understand its potential and also learn a bit about processing. I tried with PSE 9 which makes workflow for Raw easier than PSPX4. Perhaps I will utilize both.

[HaseebM]

Hi Phil, let me look up those books if available online. Sounds interesting.

Dan, thanks. I would do well to remember some of those salient features you mentioned. Hopefully I am able to post some pictures soon which will be close in terms of technicality or at the very least, basics.

[Donald]

I am not asking for shortcuts but is there anyway a person could simply click an object and come out with a beautiful photo or is this an empty wish?

I believe it is.

As has been suggested, or implied, elsewhere in this thread, the 'good photo' is made in your head not in your camera.

Professional Alain Briot expresses what I feel much better than I could do. I would strongly recommend reading his papers that appear under April 2009, May 2009, June 2009 and then, again in March, April and May 2013 at this location.

[jad]

To me a good photograph is one that has a subject with an emotional impact when viewed. It is my belief that the simplest statement is the strongest statement in photography. When choosing a composition I look to see how many unwanted things I can eliminate from the picture to get the strongest and simplest image. You only have a few seconds to hold the viewers attention and the image that strongly states its message will be the most effective.

[Manfred M]

Now "Compelling matter" is perhaps what I need to thoroughly understand. My compelling matter may not appeal to another and so on. Food for thought and thanks.

I thought long and hard (and deleted and reinserted) that part of my response. The reason I suggest a "compelling subject" is to get around what others have written about the subject having to be "nice" or "beautiful'", at least to you. There is no "rule" saying that a photograph has to be beautiful, but you do want your image to capture someone's attention with your image, so something about the subject matter has to interest you for you to spend time composing and working the image. Regardless of what it is , you need to want to create the image.

Let me also strongly disagree with those who tell you to shoot RAW. There is certainly an advantage to using RAW data (it gives you more data to work with in post-processing), but it is something that can add more complexity to your workflow and is strictly not necessary. Shoot RAW when you are ready for it, and not before. Concentrate on your compositional and photographic techniques first, and remember that pretty well any image you see posted on the net is a jpeg, regardless of what it was originally shot as.

[HaseebM]

I believe it is.

As has been suggested, or implied, elsewhere in this thread, the 'good photo' is made in your head not in your camera.

Professional Alain Briot expresses what I feel much better than I could do. I would strongly recommend reading his papers that appear under April 2009, May 2009, June 2009 and then, again in March, April and May 2013 at this location.

Thank you Donald. I read part of his article and bookmarked the page. I will read the rest of it and also check availability of his books.

[HaseebM]

I thought long and hard (and deleted and reinserted) that part of my response. The reason I suggest a "compelling subject" is to get around what others have written about the subject having to be "nice" or "beautiful'", at least to you. There is no "rule" saying that a photograph has to be beautiful, but you do want your image to capture someone's attention with your image, so something about the subject matter has to interest you for you to spend time composing and working the image. Regardless of what it is , you need to want to create the image.

Let me also strongly disagree with those who tell you to shoot RAW. There is certainly an advantage to using RAW data (it gives you more data to work with in post-processing), but it is something that can add more complexity to your workflow and is strictly not necessary. Shoot RAW when you are ready for it, and not before. Concentrate on your compositional and photographic techniques first, and remember that pretty well any image you see posted on the net is a jpeg, regardless of what it was originally shot as.

I remember many years back, I had a Nikon camera with which I shot a portraiture of my wife. I somehow liked the view side on and took the image. Even to this day that image is registered in my mind and everyone that had seen commented favourably. I believe at that time I really studied her features to know exactly what shot I should take. Your above reply ignited the memory Manfred and funnily, that was during the film days. Now with digital and freedom to delete and shoot, guess people like us take things too commonly. Time to rewind and study each and every shot I take hereafter. Thank you.

John, thank you as well.

[flashback]

"Therefore, aside from the images displayed here by forum members, this question has been eating me for sometime now and I had to ask. What defines a good photo? "

To me a good photo (one of mine) is one that represents what I saw, or envisioned (through the assistance of PP). As indicated above by Manfred's quote of Cartier-Bresson, I have many, many more photographs to get through.

Just here in CiC I've seen some stunning photographs; color, composition, subject, all combined to make amazing photos. Do I like all of them? No. Because one man's stunning photograph may be another's cliche. So I think that what makes a good photo is to shoot through you heart. There's an Italian expression; 'senza amore, senza sapore' roughly translated as no love no flavor. If you have no passion for what you're doing it will show in the end result. So if you photograph a subject in which you have no vested interest, you are indifferent to, you may get a technically perfect picture but will it sing?

For example, I have little interest in shooting models or portraiture. Were I to, the results would be uninspiring. I'm sure I could practice, learn from great photographers, take classes yet, in the end, senza amore, senza sapore. So in a long and roundabout way, your best photos are going to be the ones that you love, and loved to take. Post processing can help you improve on what you saw (and took) but it won't make you love it if you don't already.

The above being said, as for what makes a great photo taken by somebody else, it has to sing to me, it has to resonate. I've seen (in CiC) some spectacular shots of birds, stunning shots. Would I hang them on my wall? Most likely not, simply because I see them more as a documentation of a particular species at a particular moment rather than an art form. A B&W photo of a elderly man/woman, his/her face showing the ravages of time and weather; it can be evocative, it can be cover page-worthy, it may entice me to read about the photograph and the story behind it, but would I want it on my wall?

Let me be clear, all of the above are simply my opinions, how I view photography and photographs. To each their own pretty much sums up what makes a great photo, but take a look at the following links and decide for yourself how others would answer your question.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/...phs-ever-taken
http://www.slideshare.net/peiman/50-...os-of-all-time
http://twistedsifter.com/2013/03/mos...d-photos-ever/
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ng...18_600x450.jpg

p.s. taking pictures is supposed to be about having fun...go have fun.
http://twistedsifter.com/2013/05/50-...eryday-places/

[HaseebM]

Very well said Jack. Thank you for taking the time out as well as providing those links which I went through ( except the first one which did not open ). I understand what and a few others have stated here and I agree. Yes I want to have fun as that's the main purpose but there are times when you have friends or family who know I indulge in this hobby and want their children or self photographed or even occasions. That's the time when I need to be confident of what I am photographing and thus my topic. But all other times, photography is for fun and memories.

[Polar01]

Haseeb: I think I now see your problem my friend and it became clear with "but". You have family and friends who want you to take photos of them, because they are close, you want to give them the type of an photo taken by someone with years of experience who does it for a living. Well you are as you say "I indulge in this hobby" and that is what it is a hobby. So go out have fun shoot the images, then learn from them, if these people do not like them no problem it is not like they paid for the shots or anything. There have been a number of threads where someone has asked a member to shoot their special event, you can hear the fear in their writing for suggests so they will not blow it.
So again I say go out have fun, learn what works, what does not work, it is YOUR TIME not theirs, your hobby not their freebie, and you produce the photos you want and vision not them.

Cheers:

Allan

[HaseebM]

Thank you Allan, that is indeed nice of you. Family and friends having seen my pictures and gear immediately jump to the conclusion I am a 'pro' by sorts. Obviously they own cameras but do not read tutorials or make life complicated. :lol: What makes my case even harder is the fact I occasionally take astro images which are well received both by family, friends and astro community. Mind you I am at the very least a 'beginning astrophotographer' and I give you an image to show what I mean. I think you understand where I am coming from.

I must accept however, the numerous replies and comments I received were highly gracious and very eye opening. It gives a sense of belonging to a fantastic community so my hats off to all members here, specially those who gave me useful tips.

Omega Centauri


Saturn


M 42 Orion nebula through 200 f/4l


Above not related to topic but attached three different types of images to help understand my situation.

[Jeff S]

I like to spend time with photography books that tend toward the "artistic" aspects of photography (not books on gear or even software techniques) because they stoke my creative juices. I like looking at other photographers' images (lots of them) and guess what they did inside the camera, which lens they used, and how they expressed themselves artistically. If the EXIF data is available, I try to guess before I look at that. (That is not to say that I don't spend time with the software and gear; I just want to make sure that I am developing my mind's eye too.)

[HaseebM]

That sounds like something I need to try and nurture, Jeff. Thank you for this insight.

[William W]

What defines a good photo?

Absolute Relevance.

WW