What makes a good photograph?

judomick

Was pondering the above today, what to you makes a good photograph i took the below and personally think theres something about it that just looks good! but its not really of anything, just wondering what are your own opinions on what makes a good pic!

B0rG

Cause it's not Friday I'll be brief: you'll know when you see one.

rymus

frighteningly helpful as always...

Fajitas!

Agree with B0rG, nothing IS a good photo, there are guidelines, but at the end of the day, a good photo is a good photo... sorry!

rymus

*bangs head on desk*

melekalikimaka

i like the image alot, its one you could see framed on a wall and not think anything but 'nice picture' its something ordinary...looking less than ordinary, which is one of many waya a picture can be classified as good, ONE of MANY, as long as one person likes your photo its a good photo IMO

Benster

I find that it's just at the moment I fire the shutter that just I know I've got something worthwhile or not. And as long as I don't feck up the exposure, those are usually the shots others give the thumbs up to as well. It's hard to expain what makes a good one, but I find "you just know".

I was at Hook Head in Wexford this weekend and used 4 rolls of film shooting waves and the lighthouse. I THINK I have a few beauties, I'll know when I get them tomorrow.

B.

B0rG

TBH this photo didn't strike me at all, I was trying to think what's pictured, then I was trying to think why it was pictured. then I was trying to think why the photographer used such dop (macro if I'm not mistaken), then I was trying to think what photographer wanted to say with this. Then I just gave up, thinking it must be an orthodox church bell in the winter time of year...

But having seen the question in the subject "What makes the good photo?" I couldn't resist a remark

We can leave it untill Friday and then go into looong conversation about what really makes a good photo. Preferably in the new Georgian Restaurant on Talbot St. - good georgian food el cheapo.

I think I will mention your breath taken away when you look at Ansel Adams photos, where you start to admire small details, composition and almost feel the air of the scenery. Or the feeling of wonder about the moment when you look at Cartier-Bresson's photos. Heh, you can't argue with time proven classics. However when you look at those photos you instantly know that yes, these are very good photos, and then you just look into yourself for why do you think it's good. Enuff said. Let's leave something to be said on Friday.

2 the author: there is a good tradition of naming pictures as it could give some clues to what is actually pictured...

digitalage

What makes a good phograph? You would have a much better chance of getting a good photgraph if your a good photograper, I think anyone can become a good photographer with time and dedication. I read a good article about this on radint vista entitled "The Myth of Talent" link below if anyone is interested.

http://www.radiantvista.com/archive/articles/1/

elven

Funny, how everyone has neglected to mention the issue of taste… since photography is generally included under the banner of ‘art’, there is pretty much no good and bad. There is popular, and there are a million other definitions like ‘alternative’ or ‘technically correct’ but I’d say there’s no way one person, or even a group of people, could go round labelling photographs as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, it simply doesn’t exist. Some people like to jump on the historical bandwagon and rave about the ‘masters’, not considering that the only reason these people were considered masters is because someone else thought they were rather good, started showing their stuff around to other people, and eventually it became a general concensus. There could be any number of people with equal and possibly more talent than these masters, that never had the chance/money/connections and so are completely unknown and so not considered at all for that prestigious label. You can talk about rules of composition, not cutting people’s extremities off at certain joints and combinations of colour and tone but really, really, at the end of the day it simply comes down to what speaks to you, what you get something from looking at, what you’d be happy to hang on YOUR wall. And your opinion is no more or less valid than those of people who consider themselves experts on the frickin impressionists or any other group of artists in history that have been put on a pedestal by pretentious, self obsessed, over opinionated critics and collectors.

Then you have to consider the objective of the photographer – what purpose do they want the image to serve? Do they want to tell a story? Do they want to create something aesthetically pleasing? Do they want to provoke a feeling, or describe a place or person, or record an event? Do you have to know their intent before you consider whether the picture is good, or bad? Can you look at a picture and say it’s bad at one of those objectives and good at another – where does that leave you?

Some people shoot to please themselves. Some people shoot to please themselves and find a small niche of people with similar taste who also like it. Some people try to please the masses. Who gives a toss? Enjoy looking at/creating the stuff you like, ignore the stuff you don’t, and don’t go round telling someone that their work is good or bad in relation to the rules that relate to your taste, pretending that they are in any way more important than anyone elses.