What makes a photograph "good"?

[Tin Can]

Is this good?

https://www.artic.edu/artworks/158461/untitled-ophelia

I think it fits in at ARTIC, but I would not want it on my wall

I do admire his work

Which MUST be seen in museum, we miss everything on a cell phone

btw ARTIC is now tracking what we look at...and remembers

[BrianShaw]

My opinion would remain the same without the famous photographer, and without the colorful story, and without knowledge of the image’s fame.

[h2oman]

OK, I will lay myself bare so you can all see what a simpleton I am. I really wanted to hear what others had to say, but only Brian has stepped up, and he's challenged me to do so.

I'll use the photograph linked to by TC, which I think is pretty good, but I don't like it.

For me, there are a number of things that go into a photograph being good. At the basest level, all technical aspects must be good enough to support what the image is imparting to me. Check.

The composition, lighting and development should support the subject and not have unintentional distractions. Check, mostly. I'm bothered by three mergers, the corners of a photo hanging along the upper stairs and the thing to the left of the middle window merging with stair railings, and her head with the reflection of the lamp shade. Given that the scene has been created, I assume the photographer did not mind those things or he would have changed them. The lighting and development support the subject and scene well, I think.

For color images, I think the use of color should have at least some intentionality. I think the colors in this case support the sort of campy vibe of the photo.

There must be enough intrigue to keep my interest for a bit. Some element of mystery, beauty, or both, is helpful in that regard. Check for the mystery - I don't see this as beautiful, but that is a matter of taste.

A bit of compositional cleverness I always appreciate, but it's not necessary. The thing that jumps out at me in this image is the repetition and balancing effect of the three photos hung along the upper stairs and the three windows in the front door. I think that provides points toward "good."

The reasons I don't like this are that I don't care for the subject matter, and it is a bit contrasty. Both matters of personal taste. It's also a bit busy for me. I like densely patterned things, but not a whole bunch of sort of random stuff. Taste again.
,
A funny thing that doesn't really bother me as to the photograph, but which grates with my sense of reality (not that I expect photographs to be realistic), is that she is floating much too high in the water!

I'm thinking out loud, and here is my summary: To me, what makes a photo good is that it exhibits intentionality of composition, lighting, color and/or tones, technical execution, and development/presentation to support the "subject," which may be a person, object or scene, but may also, or alternatively, be a feeling, mood, message, etc.

OK, that may be enough fodder to get some of you going!

[jnantz]

what's good is all about the spin, and the comments+likes by certain people on-line
as a customer said in front of me when his wife bought an expensive bag of Indonesian coffee
"that coffee tastes like sh!t ... we better get 2 bags"

[BrianShaw]

There’s nothing wrong with simplification, as long as wisdom is also applied. Simple is elegant; stupid/ignorant is a totally different thing.I would not call you a “simpleton” even though I resemble that term also.

[Michael R]

I think what you’re describing is basically art appreciation - ie generally as one becomes increasingly knowledgeable he is able to recognize the various elements (aesthetic or otherwise) which tend to be present in works broadly characterized as “good”, “important” etc. and see works from that perspective even though they may not appeal to him personally.

The way in which an arts lover/practitioner evolves over time is an interesting topic (to me at least). For me there has been large scale symmetry in terms of development.

OK, I will lay myself bare so you can all see what a simpleton I am. I really wanted to hear what others had to say, but only Brian has stepped up, and he's challenged me to do so.

I'll use the photograph linked to by TC, which I think is pretty good, but I don't like it.

For me, there are a number of things that go into a photograph being good. At the basest level, all technical aspects must be good enough to support what the image is imparting to me. Check.

The composition, lighting and development should support the subject and not have unintentional distractions. Check, mostly. I'm bothered by three mergers, the corners of a photo hanging along the upper stairs and the thing to the left of the middle window merging with stair railings, and her head with the reflection of the lamp shade. Given that the scene has been created, I assume the photographer did not mind those things or he would have changed them. The lighting and development support the subject and scene well, I think.

For color images, I think the use of color should have at least some intentionality. I think the colors in this case support the sort of campy vibe of the photo.

There must be enough intrigue to keep my interest for a bit. Some element of mystery, beauty, or both, is helpful in that regard. Check for the mystery - I don't see this as beautiful, but that is a matter of taste.

A bit of compositional cleverness I always appreciate, but it's not necessary. The thing that jumps out at me in this image is the repetition and balancing effect of the three photos hung along the upper stairs and the three windows in the front door. I think that provides points toward "good."

The reasons I don't like this are that I don't care for the subject matter, and it is a bit contrasty. Both matters of personal taste. It's also a bit busy for me. I like densely patterned things, but not a whole bunch of sort of random stuff. Taste again.
,
A funny thing that doesn't really bother me as to the photograph, but which grates with my sense of reality (not that I expect photographs to be realistic), is that she is floating much too high in the water!

I'm thinking out loud, and here is my summary: To me, what makes a photo good is that it exhibits intentionality of composition, lighting, color and/or tones, technical execution, and development/presentation to support the "subject," which may be a person, object or scene, but may also, or alternatively, be a feeling, mood, message, etc.

OK, that may be enough fodder to get some of you going!

[Tin Can]

simple is good

i once read, an intelligent creature speaks in manner understood by listener

access to art in temples is problematic

closed loops

fail

[BrianShaw]

I think what you’re describing is basically art appreciation - ie generally as one becomes increasingly knowledgeable he is able to recognize the various elements (aesthetic or otherwise) which tend to be present in works broadly characterized as “good”, “important” etc. and see works from that perspective even though they may not appeal to him personally.

The way in which an arts lover/practitioner evolves over time is an interesting topic (to me at least). For me there has been large scale symmetry in terms of development.

... and just as important as recognition... an increased ability to clearly express/verbalize those elements.

[Oren Grad]

I think what you’re describing is basically art appreciation - ie generally as one becomes increasingly knowledgeable he is able to recognize the various elements (aesthetic or otherwise) which tend to be present in works broadly characterized as “good”, “important” etc. and see works from that perspective even though they may not appeal to him personally.

... and just as important as recognition... an increased ability to clearly express/verbalize those elements.

Now we're going meta... "What makes an art appreciator 'good'?"

[BrianShaw]

Now we're going meta... "What makes an art appreciator 'good'?"

A bit of arrogance and British or French accent, preferably with a nasal "wealthy" drawl.