What makes a good photo...

[Ed Eubanks]

Hi everyone,
I'm teaching a brief (50 min.) seminar on photography this weekend, and I have decided to approach the topic from the angle of "what makes a good photo". As I've been thinking about it, I've come up with some ideas, but I thought I would ask here and see what y'all came up with.
I'm going to go in the same direction that I used to when I worked in photo-retail, and a customer would bring their photos in and ask me what went wrong. This will basically focus on the following three broad elements of consideration: light/shadow, background/setting, and color/monochrome. Given that each person there probably will have a different set of values concerning each of these, I'll talk generally and give some suggestions and tips.
What do you think? Would you add anything to the list? Any thoughts are welcome. Thanks in advance.

[Chad Jarvis]

"Good" and "technically correct" are two altogether different animals. To me a good photograph is one I like.

[Graeme Hird]

Q: "What makes a good photo ..."A: A good photographer!



Focus and a steady camera are important for the beginer, as are exposure and composition. It's a big subject, and I wish you luck fitting it into a talk of less than an hour.



Cheers,
Graeme

[matthew blais]

My thoughts were to do the psychiatrist bit and ask the students what THEY think makes a good photograph... say a few ahems, and aha's and then add your insight.

[Sam]

I think you can teach the technical aspect of photography. Vision can not be taught. You have it or you don't.

[Graeme Hird]

Sam,



I disagree: While I think it is true that vision can't be taught, it can be learnt.



For proof, simply look back through your own files and critically judge your earliest work. Have you improved your vision? Can you honestly say you had vision from the first picture you took?



Cheers,Graeme

[Nick Morris]

Hello Ed and all, this type of question comes every so often, and I enjoy it when they do. It gives me and the others who respond a moment to give some thought to what we are trying to do, make good photographs. It struck me as funny this morning that for putting so much effort into wanting to make "good" photographs, how little I really think about what I think makes a good photograph. Like Graeme, I have responded in the past with "a good photographer" to a similar question. But to expand on that a bit, I guess I would say that there are two basic criteria for judging photos taken with some intent beyound just capturing the moment, that is, the "snapshot". They would be technical (the control of camera movement, focus, exposure, etc) and esthetic (the choices of subject, point of view, application of the technical aspects, film type, processing and presentation, etc). My feeling is that the "good" photograher bends and blends these criteria to produce a photo that is intended to convey something to the viewer, be it a mood, a feeling, a question, a statement, a sense of what is being viewed, maybe even the essence of what is being viewed...how successfully the photo makes the conveyance is the measure of how good the photo is; how consistently the photographer creates such photos is the measure of how good the photographer is.

[Steve J Murray]

For a seminar to inexperienced photographers I would suggest talking about and demonstrating: some basic lighting principles, and isolating subject from background. In 50 minutes you're going to have to be pretty brief and simple. I disagree in part with Graeme: some people are just born with a good "eye." But, maybe it can be learned as well. We all know people who could always "draw" really well even without instruction. Its not unlike musical ability, which is also innately there in some people as well. My brother was picking out tunes on the piano at age 4. By the time he was a teenager he was a gifted classical and jazz pianist. The photos I took when I first got a Nikon when I was 18 or 19 are just as sophisticated and "good" as the ones I take now, at age 53. Composition comes naturally for me. I never have to give it much thought. Photographing people, I concentrate more on timing and capturing expression and let the composition come naturally. That does not surprise me, since my mother is an excellent artist and my father made a good living in advertising, which depended on good graphic design among other things.

[Graham Patterson]

This is going to depend a lot on the experience of your audience. The better the technical grounding the easier it will be to talk about aesthetic refinements.

People (non-photographers) make pictures because they want an image of something. They often do not have a clear idea of what they want an image of, and less of an idea of how to extract that image from the visual clutter that surrounds it. As photographers we use our technical skills to simplify and refine, and thus increase the aesthetic strength of our subject. At least, that is the intent!

You can teach people technique. You cannot teach them to see. But you can teach them to analyse and refine the compositional elements as a craft. Then, one hopes, there will come a time when the 'Ah Ha!' moment of finding the right image is the rule rather than the exception.

[Philippe Gauthier]

A way to make this point in a classroom would be to show a series of excellent pictures using several different technique. Some would be very sharp, some would show some kind of "romantic" diffusion, some would be Diana type fuzzy pictures, some would make and agressive use of color, etc... For each, the pupils would be asked first, what they think is the mood and/or the message and second, how the technique chosen enhances the message or the emotional response.

Then, you'd show a series of poor or bad pictures, technically correct but clearly lacking in focus, intent, mood, artistic value... You know, snapshots of cats and the like. Continue asking your pupils the same question and note their hesitations - it should prove very difficult for them to agree on an answer, even if they try hard.

Then summarize the finding and you've got your lecture. The most difficult part is to get the pictures in such a short delay.

As far as vision is concerned, I believe that some have more inate ability than the others and that some are seriously and permanently impaired; but for a vast majority of people, it's simply a skill that must be trained. The real mystery is what exactly allows the masters to have such a strong vision.