Forget boring, ...

[h2oman]

...what makes a photograph good?

[Ken Lee]

If you like it, you like it.

[h2oman]

I'm going to be like Jac in the other thread and say you're copping out, Ken! ;)

I'm not talking about whether I like it, but whether it is good. There are many photographs that I don't like that are good, but now that I've seen a lot of photography I never like a photograph that is not good.

I think that there are many on this forum who are qualified to speak to elements that make a photograph good, and I'd like to hear what they are. For example, one photographer I've visited with says the first thing he looks at in a photo is the corners, another told me he first looks at whether it is sharp.

One thing I look for is a simple, strong composition, which your work always exhibits, Mr. Lee!

I've also heard a well established photographer say that "Rule number one is that there are no rules," so we would all understand that nothing any of us might say about this is absolute.

So the goal here is for some of you to volunteer elements that you think make for a good photograph.

[Corran]

For me it's a strong composition first and foremost. Even a boring subject to me can be eclipsed by this element.

I'm becoming less concerned about some of the technical things. I've printed a few photos recently that aren't all that sharp because of mistakes I've made, but I still think they are strong images. Your friend who first looks for sharpness...well I see that a lot, unfortunately, and I think it is a bit sad to think about such a shallow interpretation of a photograph.

More importantly for me, I've been wondering what, exactly, does "good" mean? If it just means an acceptable image at an acceptable quality, with a modicum of thought put into it, then most photos are at least "good." How about great? Or superlative?

[Peter Collins]

Quotha Louis Armstrong: "If you like it, it's good music!"

[DrTang]

I have this notion that if one took..say 1000 photographs ..or 10,000 even.. and a bunch of us were asked to (individually) pick the 'good' ones out from that large group

there would be a lot of different images picked for one reason or another..however - there would also be a small group of photos that all or most of us would have all chosen...it is this small group of photos.. that interests me as I'm not sure the reasons given by each individual would match up - yet..there it is in the group

[Ted R]

My answer: Some visual evidence in the image that the photographer understands that making a photographic image has much in common with the other ways of making pictures, drawing engraving and painting, and that the study of pictures made by these methods is relevant to photography, not the technical methods, the aesthetic methods that address the questions what subject? what intention? what viewpoint? what perspective? what framing? what size? what tonalities? what textures? what background? etc..........

[barnacle]

How can you possibly make a definition of 'good'? It's completely subjective (as indeed is 'bad' but one can make at least a case that technically incompetent images are bad by definition).

Certainly my definition of 'good' is unlikely to be the same as anyone else's here. And my definition of 'boring' similarly.

Neil

[faberryman]

How can you possibly make a definition of 'good'?
Consult Plato The Republic, Book Vi, 508e:

“This reality, then, that gives their truth to the objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to the knower, you must say is the idea of good, and you must conceive it as being the cause of knowledge, and of truth in so far as known."

Also wouldn't hurt to take a glance at the Hippias Major for his thoughts on beauty, since hopefully we are talking aesthetics and not something which is merely technically good, as in competent.

I mention these two in passing because they are accessible. There is a whole branch of philosophy - Aesthetics - which deals with the subject of art and beauty, and simply saying its all relative, or in the eye of the beholder, is to ignore centuries of profound thinking. The suggestion of aesthetic relativism is lazy thinking.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Consult Plato The Republic, Book Vi, 508e:

“This reality, then, that gives their truth to the objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to the knower, you must say is the idea of good, and you must conceive it as being the cause of knowledge, and of truth in so far as known."

The perennial Akashic, which is beyond relativism.

[Peter Lewin]

On a philosophical level, I agree that "good" is so subjective as to be undefinable. And I know from experience at my monthly critique group meetings, that (as DrTang mentioned earlier) for almost any objective critique given, another person in the group will disagree, and say that the feature of the image which one person objected to is exactly why the second person likes the image. But given that, I have been thinking about my own response, and (unfortunately) it becomes a long list of elements. I translate "a good photograph" as one that makes me want to come back to it time and again, and here are potential reasons:

- Subject matter: There are few images of Anasazi sites in the Southwest, or Ponting's photographs from the early polar expeditions, which don't absorb my interest. IOW, most of us have subjects that fascinate us, and as long as the image is in focus and reasonably well printed, we will return to those images many times.
- Humor or optical illusion: I return to images which make me smile; examples would be many by Elliot Erwitt, Lee Friedlander, and others who have an eye for the odd juxtaposition, or many photographs by our own Austin Granger which play with either irony or optics. I would also include in this category surrealism, of which our own Alex Timmermans has posted wonderful examples.
- The "Unusual:" Here I think of the portraits by Diane Arbus, or in a darker vein, Avedon's "The West."
- Technique: Here I don't mean focus planes or printing, but older techniques such as Wet Plate, Aero Ektar lenses, or Petzvals, sort of technical elements which make an image "different." For me at least, an image which is "OK" often rises a few notches because it has a unique look which cannot be achieved without particular processes or equipment. Platinum prints also fall into this group.
- Composition: This is rarely sufficient in itself, but if we exclude portraits, I am drawn to clean geometries, such as in the work of the (once) "New Topographers" such as Robert Adams, Ray Conniff.

Now that I have listed a number of elements which by themselves, or in combination, make up what I consider "a good photo," it is also so extensive as to serve as a proof that there is no definition that really works.

[faberryman]

Now that I have listed a number of elements which by themselves, or in combination, make up what I consider "a good photo," it is also so extensive as to serve as a proof that there is no definition that really works.
And yet, we can usually reach a general consensus about which photographs are good and which are lacking, knowing that opinions exist on either side of the bell curve.

[JeffBradford]

Composition, subject, exposure, and the way they all work together. The subject should communicate something. The more levels it communicates on, the better.

[Peter Lewin]

Composition, subject, exposure, and the way they all work together. The subject should communicate something. The more levels it communicates on, the better.
Unfortunately this is a little like peeling an onion, since it leads to the question "what does 'communicates' mean?" I look at two purchased photographs on my wall, both of which most would consider "good photographs" by well-known photographers. The first is by John Sexton, I think it is "Tenaya Creek." It is a "nice" landscape photograph which I keep looking at as a technical example: very well exposed, very well printed. I use it as a gauge to compare with my own photographs. But I don't think it "communicates" with me, in the 20 or more years I have owned it, it has never "said" more than that it is a fine example of what we often call the "West Coast School" of landscape photography. The second is a stone building, presumably in the Himalaya, by Linda Connor. Again, a very nice print of architecture in a picturesque place. I enjoy it because I have always been an armchair mountaineer, reading many books about Himalayan climbing, although personally I've never been higher or climbed more distantly than Mt. Ranier, and some hill-walking in the U.K., France and Switzerland. The picture doesn't speak to me, but it is again what I consider an excellent photograph with a kind of "nostalgic" value (or said differently, it coincides with one of my interests, but one which at age 70 I am unlikely to pursue). So I don't know how to connect the idea of "communicating" with "good photograph."

[interneg]

What makes a photograph 'good' for me is: does it make me feel something about the contents & references in the image; and does it hold my interest strongly enough that I take the time to read & try to understand it.

Basing your initial judgement on camera-club level understanding of technique is not a good way to engage with work I think. Instead we should perhaps ask whether the chosen techniques enhance or silence the work in its communication with the viewer.

[John Kasaian]

For me it depends on the subject.
With landscapes, it is a place I want to be.
With architecture, it is a building I want to go inside
With nature, it has to appeal to all my senses in so far as is possible to smell or touch or hear with one's eyes.
What? You say you can't hear with your eyes?
https://www.today.com/health/viral-gif-tower-jumping-rope-puzzles-over-mystery-sound-t119707

[Alan Gales]

I have a problem sometimes and I guess we all probably do, that I just want to take a picture. Photographers want to shoot, you know. If I give in to this without really finding a great subject then I end up with a boring photograph. I always kick myself when I do this, even with digital that didn't cost me any money. It did cost me time. I should have looked harder for that great subject or maybe shot at a better time of day or whatever I needed to do.

[h2oman]

You are not alone, Alan!

So for the sake of the discussion, let me redirect it a bit. As the OP, I figure I can do that!

What I really meant by a good photograph is not that it moves us, which is an important but deeper and more elusive topic, but rather this: What particular things do you try to attend to when making a photograph, from selecting a subject and time/light/weather in which to photograph that subject, to framing, exposure, development and printing (wet or digital), in order that your photographs meet some minimal standard for presentation that you have for your work? To reiterate an example I gave initially, maybe when looking at the ground glass (or eyepiece) you check the edges and corners to make contain or don't contain certain elements.

So what do you make some of your top priorities in this regard? Some of you may find this a bit banal, but it is always surprising to me in many areas of my personal and professional life how people will often fret about some esoteric aspect of what they are doing while at the same time failing to attend to some basic, fundamental requirements for success.

[Joe O'Hara]

I surely agree with you there, h2oman, that all of the visual elements in a photograph must be in harmony for it to be successful. This is a necessary but not a sufficient condition (a distinction that you are well familiar with) for success, however. Anything that is in the frame that does not make the picture stronger, makes it weaker. We pay attention to the corners and the edges, check that things that must be in focus are, that we've adjusted the exposure for a filter we may have used, etc., because cameras do not see in the same way that humans do-- we have to unlearn our natural ability to focus attention on the object of interest and ignore the surround. I have often been frustrated by the appearance on the negative of an invisible-at-the-time branch intruding into a corner. At the time, the camera saw it just fine, of course.

If we can do all that (and more) right, there is the chance that the picture can effect that mysterious thought transference that allows the viewer to have a sense of what the photographer felt about the subject when the shutter was opened.

This is analogous to what professional musicians do. Amateurs practice until they can play it right; professionals practice until they can't play it wrong. With that degree of technical mastery, they have the ability to recreate the composer's emotional sound world in performance because their own presence has become transparent. It is nothing more in the end than getting the materials to do what your visualization (intention) requires. It's hard to be more prescriptive than that, because every artist's intention, if it is a true one, is unique.

[JMB]

...what makes a photograph good?


A good photograph demonstrates that the photographer understands that the camera is a powerful, unique device for reconstructing nature and re-presenting it according to certain aesthetic, psychological, and intellectual sensitivities and above all a highly developed sense of truth. And the beauty of black and white photography lies in its capacity to make these kinds of reconstructions vivid, real, and undeniable to the viewer –sometimes even triggering a certain discomfort. Rodin apparently believed that a sculpture should fluctuate between life and art; I think that this injunction is even truer for a photograph. At all costs, the photograph should not reduce to a slavish attempt to simply record or imitate nature, which requires a sort of self-denial –the antithesis of the artistic personality. Rather, a good photograph demonstrates a photographer’s capacity for intense vision and his ability to express himself forcefully.

I have creative photography in mind, here, of course. And all art worthy of the name, at least in my view, ultimately has beauty and sublimity (however broadly conceived) as its primary subjects.

[John Kasaian]

At all costs, the photograph should not reduce to a slavish attempt to simply record or imitate nature, which requires a sort of self-denial –the antithesis of the artistic personality. Rather, a good photograph demonstrates a photographer’s capacity for intense vision and his ability to express himself forcefully.

I have creative photography in mind, here, of course. And all art worthy of the name, at least in my view, ultimately has beauty and sublimity (however broadly conceived) as its primary subjects.
It depends on what you want to accomplish. A police photographer recording evidence of a crime scene, or an architect recording a architectural detail, or a portrait photographer shooting his 208th high school senior that morning may have a very different viewpoint, yet all can produce a photo worthy of being considered "Art."
Sometimes the results of photography for the record can be outstanding!

[Gary Tarbert]

It depends on what you want to accomplish. A police photographer recording evidence of a crime scene, or an architect recording a architectural detail, or a portrait photographer shooting his 208th high school senior that morning may have a very different viewpoint, yet all can produce a photo worthy of being considered "Art."
Sometimes the results of photography for the record can be outstanding!Although rarely, A Photograph that is both beautiful and original is becoming harder to achieve , A police photographer recording a crime scene will always be original .But will it be beautiful Most likely not , The high school senior seen one seen them all? Now the last one is a more interesting conundrum because as long as not being photographed for the Architect the creative potential is endless!! Now the clincher i do not shoot architecture , But your other two examples are a more structured process

[JMB]

My response to the query, “What is a good photograph?” stresses two basic elements in the making of a good photograph: (1) the photographer’s understanding of and respect for the unique power of the lens and (2) the photographer’s inclination to develop and exercise his powers for expression.

I think that John Kasaian’s response aimed at the second element is actually most valuable and insightful as a confirmation of (1) --the photographer’s responsibility to understand and respect the integrity of the lens, rather than as a counter claim with respect to (2) --the importance of the creative photographer’s inclination and capacity to express himself. Kasaian’s response also suggests important issues about the uneasy relationship between photography and art. Insofar as (1) is an essential element of a good photograph, it actually elevates the importance of (2) from the standpoint of creative photography.

Redirected, Kasaian’s remarks are a vivid way of insisting upon a Photographers’ Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm.” In other words, the photographer, if nothing else, should at least be vigilant in refraining from undermining the uncompromised or even mercilessly innate intensity of the camera lens. He must be careful not to elevate technique either consciously or unconsciously to a goal itself or resort to measures that interfere with the lens’s inherent capacity to intensify and to infuse its subject matter with a great sense of truth. To be sure, if there is any validity at all to element (1), then montage, multi-media, color, hand painting, drawing, mushy focus, encouragement of process artifacts, inkjet printing or other similar devises are especially vulgar measures, which are in essence anti-photographic –they violate the Photographers’ Hippocratic Oath by undermining a photograph’s inherent sense of truth and the lens’s capacity to intensify experience.

The crime scene photographs with special impact, which Kasaian posits would certainly owe their strange status to the fact that the police photographer must have at least honored element (1) if we grant that he utterly failed to satisfy element (2). Now, it also seems unlikely to me, by the way, that our police photographer would actually fail to satisfy element (2) in light of his suggested results (in essence, Gary Talbert's observation). The more sensitive a photographer is to the hidden vicissitudes of his subject the greater his opportunity to unveil the image’s significance or to build significance into it. A photograph is never exclusively an object study; it is always and unavoidably self-asserting –sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Photographs are confessions. In any case, there is no reason to assume that the police photographer or photographers in question did not actually invest themselves emotionally or analytically in their work at least to some significant degree simply because they worked ostensibly for the record. Timothy O’Sullivan is certainly a good example of a photographer who worked for the record, but nevertheless invested himself strongly yet subtly into his subjects.

Still, Kasaian’s remarks are sufficiently valid to help in a special way to underscore the fact that the relationship between photography and art is still undetermined. And this is so because the camera if at least left unfettered makes it too rewarding or rewarding in too many ways (provisionally) for the photographer to “take” photographs rather than “create” pictures. Photographers are too easily distracted by the camera’s inherent powers to fully realize them. Even some of the great masters of the medium find themselves thinking of “recording” images rather than “making” them (Edward Weston, for example). Stieglitz, too, was never able to entirely free himself from the conception of photographs as “recordings.” To a very critical degree it seems that even the greatest photographers have never fully liberated themselves from the jealous power of the camera—always providing answers, you might say with Fichte, to questions that they never asked. And contemporary professional art critics are too far from understanding (or otherwise compromised) to point-out this fact or to even insist upon lens integrity in the first place. Yet who would doubt that our greatest photographers would bristle at the charge that they are merely mechanics?

Artists working in other media have never had to face the sort of limitation inherent in photography (also its greatest strength). Some of the greatest accomplishments in art still belong to those painters and sculptors who understood the power of representational renderings (element “1” of a good photograph) but having found it constitutionally impossible to be nature’s slaves expressed themselves forcefully through their re-presentations (element “2” of a good photograph).

But artists working in other media before the development of photography never had in their hands the kind of power that a lens has to breathe life into images –to make real a charged world of transcendental truths. And I think that the creative photographer who refuses to be a slave to nature (simply recording it) and understands and uses the power of the lens to breathe life into the subjective truths that he is able to discover about himself from the objects that he studies is in an exciting position to raise photography and art itself to new heights. For he will be making images that fluctuate between life and art –images that are powerful because they fluctuate between life and art and are so much more than mere records –even good records. Such images will also help us to more fully appreciate art’s classification as a “humanity”--an appreciation that seems to be disappearing in contemporary culture.