Whats a good or bad photo

clintondaly

Stumbled across the link below and it got me thinking.

What deems these photos to be worth the money they were sold for ?

I would think alot of us could agree on what a bad photo is,but what about a good photo,yes its a matter of opinion, but some of the ones below i would not hang them in my shed yet they sold for a fortune.

In my opinion number 8 is the only one i would consider worth the money but thats for its rarity factor rather than anything else.
Number 6 carries some merit too.

If i posted number 1 or 2 in the random photo thread had i taken them i would not have received many thanks i would have thought


http://blazepress.com/2014/06/10-expensive-photographs-ever-sold/

Oran17

I'm a big fan of Andreas Gursky, but I think Rhine II is no where near his best work, then again its hard to tell from a computer screen, very often the actual prints are much more mesmerizing.

As for spending that much on a print maybe as an investment or something.

kelly1

I just don't get "art" sometimes.

amdgilmore

clintondaly wrote: »

If i posted number 1 or 2 in the random photo thread had i taken them i would not have received many thanks i would have thought

You might if it was a 7ft by 11ft super high resolution print and you had a 30 year body of work behind you exploring similar themes. I'd say you'd get a lot of thanks in that situation

D.S.

Oran17 wrote: »

I'm a big fan of Andreas Gursky, but I think Rhine II is no where near his best work, then again its hard to tell from a computer screen, very often the actual prints are much more mesmerizing.

amdgilmore wrote: »

You might if it was a 7ft by 11ft super high resolution print and you had a 30 year body of work behind you exploring similar themes. I'd say you'd get a lot of thanks in that situation

Completely agree with both these comments..for most 'artists' the print is the media by which the art is best viewed. Viewing a jpg on a laptop rather than the actual 7' x 11' print doesn't really evoke the same reaction.

That said - the valuation of art is purely subjective. It's a combination of a whole host of factors - the uniqueness of the print, the rarity/availabilty of the print, the artist's brand, the subjective value of the print to the target audience (usually high net worth individuals) etc etc..

I love the Weston and Wall shots myself. The Billy the Kid shot is the outlier in the set - that shot was bought for 'historical' and rarity value, rather than artistic..

I am really keen to see some of Gursky's pieces in the flesh because I have always thought his shots were interesting but hugely over-priced/valued.

I also think your post OP brings up an interesting point. Most of us who take and distribute images distribute our end captures via online media (Facebook, flickr, google + etc) and today, we get value from that sharing of our portfolio virtually (which often has no commercial aspect to it). However, processing images for screen vrs print often yields v different images. For me, I am immensely more satisfied with photos that live physically in photo books or in prints, rather than online. Yet personally, 99% of my output is made for online use. I must get myself back to printing/framing more.....

dave66

"Whats a good or bad photo"

For me a good photo is one you like, the monetary value of the photo doesn't necessarily make it a good or bad photo. That might be simplistic, but I don't see why it needs to be complicated

magicbastarder

there's the good vs. bad and 'likely to sell for a lot' vs. 'not likely to sell' debate.
sure, some (many) of the photos above would garner fewer thanks on this forum than, say, a HDR shot of blurry waves washing over a shoreline at sunset; but blurry waves washing over shorelines are ten a penny, and are not backed by reputation of the photographer involved.

Lyaiera

magicbastarder wrote: »

sure, some (many) of the photos above would garner fewer thanks on this forum than, say, a HDR shot of blurry waves washing over a shoreline at sunset

Yeah, I'd take the vast majority of those photos over "Blurry water with golden hour light #2972" found on every photography forum these days.

I have no problem with people liking pretty pictures, or technically accomplished pictures, but if that's all a photo has it's not for me. It is however what a huge amount of people do want. I think there's also a reaction to that happening, with people deliberately taking photos that break the rules. It's a weird split in the general photography community when you have people taking pictures of beautiful vistas and beautiful people on the one hand, and people taking out-of-focus and deliberately alternative photos on the other. They're almost crashing off of each other. It's like a cultural struggle to be proficient at photography and to be different at photography. The stuff I really like seems to straddle both sides of that coin.

And I say all that knowing that the photos I've taken are neither accomplished pretty pictures nor strangely alternative. Digital photography and the internet have allowed a huge growth in people seeing photography. There's no-one curating what gets seen any more. You can spend all day looking at pictures that 20 years ago no-one but the photographer's friends and family would have seen. I think there's also an interesting story about photography clubs there as well.

clintondaly

Just to possibly stir the conversation a bit more i found the article below last night and thought it very interesting.

http://leicaphilia.com/the-tri-x-factor/

Maybe slightly off topic to my initial question above but then again maybe not

Knowing you have a roll of film in your camera as opposed to an SD card makes the thought process going into taking a photo different,with digital you can snap away(at the same subject or situation) and go home and sift through and delete until you narrow it down to the image that you are happy with,whereas with film you have to think there and then on the spot in the knowledge that you have only so many shots on your roll and lesser amount of chances to get it right.
So i would say that Digital can be very forgiving as opposed to Film as you can in my opinion turn a not so good photo into a good photo with the help of software, so is the person a good photographer or a good processor of photos ?

@ Lyaiera
you make a good point and im curious as to your slightly left open final sentence "I think there's also an interesting story about photography clubs there as well" Im not affilitaed to any club other than here by the way

Lyaiera

clintondaly wrote: »

@ Lyaiera
you make a good point and im curious as to your slightly left open final sentence "I think there's also an interesting story about photography clubs there as well" Im not affilitaed to any club other than here by the way

I think it's very much the Web 2.0 issue. Photography clubs (and any club) previously was entirely geographically based. There were also of course some national umbrella organisations. You can still see this with the bodies that award certificates, etc. Before the internet if you were a member of a photography club you were stuck with the people in your town or city. I get the feeling that the people fed off each other, particular styles built up and each club would have its own type of image. Purely from people looking at other's pictures and building up their own preferences. The same things happened with music scenes with towns ending up having their own particular style. While this can be good in building an identity for a type of photography, related to a particular area, it was bad because anything that deviated from the norm of the club might not have had as much support and the person might have had less encouragement.

Like I said, it's about how the internet is changing how people see pictures and how people encourage each other. Now, if you're taking a very specific type of photograph chances are you're able to find a group online that caters to that style.

Of course there are downsides. I haven't done it but I have heard of people spamming flickr groups just to get faves and likes, because that's what every member of the group does. They just like everything that comes their way in the hopes that they'll get faves back. There are ups and downs to everything, but overall I think the internet has definitely given more people tools for their personal photographic development, even if those tools can be good and bad.