What makes a photograph "good"?

[h2oman]

As the thread on composition begins to fizzle, I offer the above question. Of course there is no "correct" answer, but feel free to offer your thoughts. Insightful one word answers, flippant remarks, highbrow discourses all welcome. For some of us who are not particularly astute, it might help if any lack of seriousness is obvious!

[Dugan]

Boobies.
Just thought I'd get that out of the way early.

[BrianShaw]

If I like it, it’s good to me.

[Erik Larsen]

If I like it, it’s good to me.

That’s kind of how I look at it as well. Some folks can wax eloquent about their photography, I wasn’t blessed with those genes…

[h2oman]

This thread is just a game - play only if you want to!

If I like it, it’s good to me.

So let's define "like" by this: A photograph you "like" is one you would come back to on a regular basis. Maybe you'd hang it on your wall, maybe its in a book that you would look at regularly for enjoyment. Are there photographs that you think are good, but that you don't like, based on that definition of "like?" If so, what attributes might those photographs have that cause you to consider them good? And what attributes do they have or lack that prevent you from liking them?

[Merg Ross]

So let's define "like" by this: A photograph you "like" is one you would come back to on a regular basis. Maybe you'd hang it on your wall, maybe its in a book that you would look at regularly for enjoyment. Are there photographs that you think are good, but that you don't like, based on that definition of "like?"

Yes.

[BrianShaw]

This thread is just a game - play only if you want to!



So let's define "like" by this: A photograph you "like" is one you would come back to on a regular basis. Maybe you'd hang it on your wall, maybe its in a book that you would look at regularly for enjoyment. Are there photographs that you think are good, but that you don't like, based on that definition of "like?" If so, what attributes might those photographs have that cause you to consider them good? And what attributes do they have or lack that prevent you from liking them?

Definitely yes.

There are some that I think are "good" based on technical quality or as exemplary of a genre or an artist's vision... but I definitely don't like.

[John Brady]

If the dog eats it, it’s good dog food.

This rule probably applies to photography too.

[Scott Davis]

This thread is just a game - play only if you want to!



So let's define "like" by this: A photograph you "like" is one you would come back to on a regular basis. Maybe you'd hang it on your wall, maybe its in a book that you would look at regularly for enjoyment. Are there photographs that you think are good, but that you don't like, based on that definition of "like?" If so, what attributes might those photographs have that cause you to consider them good? And what attributes do they have or lack that prevent you from liking them?

There are photos that I like that are not "good". I like them for a whole host of reasons - it could be that it triggers a treasured memory of someone no longer living, or a past event that brought joy. It could be an erotic response. There are lots of reasons. It's that phenomenon Barthes identified as "punctum" - some element to the image that pierces you emotionally. And that element may be entirely personal and invisible to any other viewer. So that makes the photograph "important" but not necessarily "good".

To me, the "good" photograph is something that has punctum that is shareable with other viewers - some element that strikes an emotional chord in (most... if it strikes EVERYONE the same, then it's a cliche, not a good photograph) its viewers. I was going to say it also has aesthetically pleasing qualities, but there are plenty of "good" photographs that are not aesthetic (the Eddie Adams photo of the Vietnamese general assassinating a captured Viet Cong soldier, for example).

[Jim Jones]

We should consider good for what and for whom? My sports photos don't interest Ansel Adams fanatics. Unfortunately, neither do most of my scenics. The few times there is some deep meaning, viewers often miss it. Other times they seek profundity in just a shot of a pretty subject. Maybe Dugan does have the right idea.