Question! What makes a good photograph?

[Donald]

And to take the subject a bit further (I don't think this goes off in another direction), you could read Alain Briot's latest paper on the nature photograhers network website. It's here. It's maybe got more of an indirect connection to this question, but connected nevertheless.

After reading this you should click on 'Instruction' in the menu bar and then 'Articles index'. Briot has a number of papers, all of which I find immensely readable and informative. But there are also many others.

[Peter Ryan]

This is a fascinating thread.

Bill Belknap was my mentor. White House photographer during WWII, National Geographic, and major magazine photographer and well known in his day for photographs of the SouthWest Indian Nations. He drilled into me that the camera is a box to hold photographs. Its only job is to capture light. The PICTURE is behind your eyes.

I remember him commenting that watching people walkng around a showing would give you an idea whether certain photographs were actually pictures. Those that elicited a second look were in the running. Those which had people comng back around after having made the first circuit deserved to be called pictures.

He seldom discussed Art or art in photography. He did recognise that photography is visual art done with tools. Of course, painting, sculpting, drawing, architecture, and gardening are also visual arts done with tools. The finished product must then be judged by others than the creator for the decision whether the art produced is actually Art.

An artist is someone who produces things to be enjoyable to and enjoyed by others.
An Artist is one whose works have remained popular beyond his life and era.
An Artiste is one who judges himself and his own work.

Pops

Good to see you back Pops.

[Dave Humphries]

I don't see anybody else saying they make mistakes here though, see ya.

Could just be you and me then Steve (plus Colin, Rob, Antonio, Steve (wf) and Katy)

No seriously, of course we all make mistakes, sometimes writing off a whole day's captures, I know I do. That said, at the moment with a PAD running, I will inevitably post something if I have shot a picture of during the day but sadly work the week has got the better of meant I haven't shot since last Sunday

If it happens to me (all shots going wrong, I mean), all I do is work out why each went wrong; some will be my fault, some unlucky circumstance, and resolve not to do those things, or improve my luck, next time.

If 'the unsecurities' kick in, I do something else; no point dwelling on it, so I watch TV, listen to music, or come here and help others - putting what little photographic knowledge gained so far to some use is better than the alternatives.

See ya,

[Dave Humphries]

This is a fascinating thread.

Hi Pops,

Welcome back from me too and yes it is (I think that means "well done Katy").

He seldom discussed Art or art in photography. He did recognise that photography is visual art done with tools. Of course, painting, sculpting, drawing, architecture, and gardening are also visual arts done with tools. The finished product must then be judged by others than the creator for the decision whether the art produced is actually Art.

Absolutely; that "levels the playing field" for all those that say photography isn't art (none here I suspect).

I remember him {Bill Belknapp} commenting that watching people walkng around a showing would give you an idea whether certain photographs were actually pictures. Those that elicited a second look were in the running. Those which had people comng back around after having made the first circuit deserved to be called pictures.

The modern, CiC analogy of this is probably the Monthly and Themed competition voting process, although we don't get to see the decision making happening in front of us, we see the results - and those invariably pan out to there being one or two very popular choices, a handful of less popular, after that the rest get one or two votes each or none at all. But the thing is, I can never predict why some the very good photos fall into the last two categories, they are simply equivalent to the ones that get the first view and then no further. It just depends upon what they are up against in any month. Of course a photographer having a showing usually has the advantage that it is all their own work that is being chosen from, so they 'win' regardless, just not perhaps with what they thought was their best work.

An artist is someone who produces things to be enjoyable to and enjoyed by others.
An Artist is one whose works have remained popular beyond his life and era.
An Artiste is one who judges himself and his own work.

I think the first sentence is the relevant one here - their aim is to make an image with popular appeal, not just because they will enjoy it themselves.

In other words; many 'amateur' photographers (that might simply try to recreate an image or theme they have seen), are not necessarily true artists, nor do many want to be - for them, it is just a hobby, the taking (and/or PP) part is often the enjoyment factor and that's enough for them.

Professionals working to a client's brief may not be artists either.

However, as we see here at CiC, in following one's own, or a client led agenda, doesn't rule out producing something that, suitably presented to the world, might be judged a great 'work of art' image - popular to many.

Stock photographers, or as some here, 'amatuers' that sell their best work on the interweb, market stall or through other outlets, are actually the real artists. Arguably, many are only 'aspiring', at least until their first sale to a random member of public (rather than friend or family).

Of course, the lines get blurred because as people develop their skill, they may move from 'amatuer' into other one of the other areas - and good luck to them, because ultimately we all benefit from that.

Cheers,

Dave (the amateur)

[Wirefox]

An artist is someone who produces things to be enjoyable to and enjoyed by others.
An Artist is one whose works have remained popular beyond his life and era.
An Artiste is one who judges himself and his own work.

Welcome back Pops. I would certainly insert the word "popular" in front of the word Artist in the first 2 sentences

Arguably, many are only 'aspiring', at least until their first sale to a random member of public (rather than friend or family).

Predictably, I will argue. I cannot accept that monetary gain is the qualifier for the tag of photographer (and/or artist). 'Professional' possibly, popular certainly. It cannot be the case that we are all 'aspiring' photographers until we sell a print to John Doe. There are photographers on this forum who I admire greatly and they knock many professionals into a cocked hat. They do not earn from their work but I certainly dont see them as 'aspiring'

The whole business of professional and amateur in photography is misleading in the extreme. If I applied the accepted norm for qualification as 'professional' in the UK I would expect to see some BAs appearing after names. It is perhaps predictable that the photographic profession adopts the sporting worlds definition of 'professional'. I can absolutely see why, but since that is the case any attempt to claim the self appointed titles as an artistic or creative skill indicator are illusionary (or delusionary)

[FredSpencer]

Well for what it's worth, I make mistakes all the time.

Just last night I wasted a couple of hours doing a series of shots (including a 20 minute and 30 minute exposure) that just didn't work out; my mistake was misinterpreting the conditions and how they would look once recorded. I thought the cloud might add some colour and some texture of interest, but the photo (despite my best PP attempts) is just plain BORING. And to add insult to injury, I've also got over 150 dust spots to clean off the sensor sometime soon.

I don't find your shot boring, but I can watch clouds for hours.

The colours and light are very pleasing to me but I would suggest a crop, something like this (hope you don't mind), which would promote interest in the content.






WRT the OP, shoot what you like and if anyone else likes it consider it a bonus. Don't get yourself tied up in knots ovr it or you'll never like anything you do.

[Dave Humphries]

Predictably, I will argue

Not sure I have the energy

There are photographers on this forum who I admire greatly and they knock many professionals into a cocked hat.

I agree

I cannot accept that monetary gain is the qualifier for the tag of photographer (and/or artist).

I didn't say photographer, I said artist with the definition that they were trying to sell their work 'on the side', not as a full time occupation, therefore I did not apply the label 'professional'.

You are correct that many here produce work that is of higher quality than some professionals, but I was talking of what a person's occupation is, or at least, what their intent was when they took the picture, not the quality of any work they produce.

Of course it is not helped that unless someone states their intent, we don't know whether it was taken for their own pleasure or for possible sale. We have one notable exception in Colin, as we can deduce that if it is a sunset, it is for sale, if a friend's kids it's a gift and if his daughters, it's for personal use, or more likely, our education

Prefixing 'popular' debatebly achieves the same result as my 'aspiring', but I've had enough of semantics for one night.

Anyway, as you can see, this is all getting too 'highbrow' for me to keep up with you, so I'll bow out at this point.

[purplehaze]

The other interesting aspect that's starting to emerge from the discussion is the role and importance (or not) of culture.

This is one of the more interesting aspects for me, Donald...
Coincidentally, I came across this great image yesterday, which I couldn't help thinking about in the context of this discussion:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_770127.html

It meets many of the criteria of "good" mentioned here (freshness, fitness for meeting its purpose, technical quality), but still I think its impact relies to a great extent on reference to the context outside its frame, which is in many ways culture- and time-bound. If and when images like this become banal, are they still good? I can't help thinking about all the art do we not fully appreciate because we are viewing it from a radically different time and cultural perspective. Suddenly I understand the challenge facing the art historian.

Janis

[purplehaze]

Related question: Is maximum impact in inverse relation to shelf life?

you could read Alain Briot's latest paper on the nature photograhers network website. It's here.

Great article, Donald. Every beginner should read it.

Janis

[Wirefox]

Not sure I have the energy

Dave, I should have read your post more thoroughly...same problem no energy at present

[PopsPhotos]

Thank you all for the welcome back. I didn't realize I had been out that long. I have been checking in fairly regularly, but I guess I haven't been posting very much. Still running in little circle, keeping an eye out for dogs sniffing around.

Pops

[Pete W]

Great question and thread...one question generates dozens of others, there is no definitive answer IMHO.

On another tack (apologies) I suspect that peoples interest in images has a mirror in their interests in music....and that's all about emotional and intellectual response to stimuli. I think?
I listen to all sorts of music and look at all sorts of images, I don't necessarily like it all.....
A good photograph to me is one that engages me, I'm not a stickler to technical expertise (you may have noticed ).
Music...has to engage me, make me grin or raise the hairs on my arms..and again I'm not a stickler to the perfect rendition.

I have friends who only look at and listen to things they know and like...
A good photo to them is a comfortable image.
A good piece of music is often something they are very familiar with (comfortable again)..often from their "era"...

So, CIC has a lot of people taking great photos, I just wondered if this passion is reflected in their love of music...If you take unusual photos do you like unusual music? If you favour majestic landscapes do you like orchestral music? If you take pictures of people do you like folk..? If you like pictures of pets do you like popular music?

I'm rambling someone stop me !

Pete

[Dave Humphries]

So, CIC has a lot of people taking great photos, I just wondered if this passion is reflected in their love of music...If you take unusual photos do you like unusual music? If you favour majestic landscapes do you like orchestral music? If you take pictures of people do you like folk..? If you like pictures of pets do you like popular music?

I'm rambling someone stop me !

Pete

No Pete, on the contrary - why not start a new thread that asks what types of photograph and styles of music (by genre or band name) members enjoy looking through/listening to, in their spare time?

It is an an interesting thought to see if there is any correlation or 'common ground' between people and their tastes.

Cheers,

[Donald]

No Pete, on the contrary - why not start a new thread that asks what types of photograph and styles of music

I agree. Start a new thread.

[Katy Noelle]

The other interesting aspect that's starting to emerge from the discussion is the role and importance (or not) of culture.

Like all art forms, what a peron from one culure consider a 'good' image may differ significantly from what a person of another culture might think. Other examples are in music and theatre - some cultures practice these forms of art in such a way that is incomprehensible to me. I might appreciate the artistic skill involved. but it doesn't mean anything to me, because I don't understand it (or you could turn that last bit around - don't understand it, so it has no meaning).

So, I've got to be able to relate the image to my known universe in order to be able to understand it and, in turn, to take some meaning from it.

I'm just picking up the thread again after being away in my garden for a day. As I was quickly reading through, music has come up and it made me think of Japanese Opera and the oriental scale (sorry, my vocabulary might be off) - not the pentatonic scale but the fact that, in their music, they have many more notes than we do. In other words, they may have 2 -4 notes for every one in Western music. I can't make heads nor tales of it! It doesn't speak to me because it is culturally learned! I don't speak that musical language. I don't know - I'm not sure if there is a photographic equivalent. When i SEE things from other cultures - it can really touch me. I can't think of anything that I could see that I wouldn't understand - I may not understand the motivation but I could see what was going on. I don't know. This thought has to simmer.

All of your thoughts have gone into the pot that is always simmering on the fire in the back of my mind.

Anyhoo, I had a little/big personal epiphany and I thank you all for replying to this thread. I guess, in a nutshell, I was thinking that to produce a good photograph, I had to produce a work of "art". Maybe it will be a piece of commercial art or, maybe, it will be an illlustration. Like "Arith" said (approximately), "I just do photographs that I hope gets an emotional response." I know my "crowd" and they are amazed at how my photography is improving and I think that I'm speaking more and more - that's good! If my photos can speak "across crowds" - SUPER!!! So! In other words, I am going to shoot what I love and separate any worry of what is a good photo and what is worthy of being "art", etc., etc., etc. I wasn't looking for this when I asked the question but I'm glad to have this clear in my own mind, anyway.

[Glenn NK]

I view photography as an art form, so what is good to me is what moves me.

In reply to Katy's last comments, I think there is a cultural aspect to art, but perhaps not to the same extent as music.

I cannot fathom music from many of the world's cultures (don't interpret this as dislike), but Japanese art (for example) is something that I do appreciate and enjoy.

Glenn

[AlanP]

I can't say what makes a good photo, but I ask myself why the picture I am about to take will not work. This has stopped me from taking a lot of bad pictures.

[Rob Douglas]

I was told by a salesman that the most expensive camera and lenses are what makes a good photograph. I found out that it wasn't true when a friend sold his car to fund some really great gear and my point & shoot images blow his away. Now he has a crappy car and crappy pictures LOL

[wilgk]

I've been thinking about this....(dangerous I know)...and 1 thing I wanted to mention is that when I see a photograph that (I think) is good - I get a sense that the photographer wanted to be there capturing just that moment.

[Katy Noelle]

I've been thinking about this....(dangerous I know)...and 1 thing I wanted to mention is that when I see a photograph that (I think) is good - I get a sense that the photographer wanted to be there capturing just that moment.

Hmmmmm, it really takes you into the moment? Or, even more, the heart that was in the capture was evident? Is that possible? I've worked for a long time with that with singing - full heart in the singing while being calm, cool and collected so that I can be technically excellent. I wonder how to translate that.

Yes! Thinking......