What makes a photo great?

[Mad Aussie]

From another thread ...


Art is in the perception of the viewer.
That's very true ... I don't how many times I've seen what I think is a great photo get absolutely no attention at all and awards given to photos that to me are not worthly of being looked by sighted people!

Also, I often show my photos in my online galleries to a selection of people and family (some are photographers, some are not) and it's amazing how often they all love different photos in the selection.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

For the purposes of this discussion ... a 'Great' photo will be separated and defined in the following two categories ....

PROFESSIONAL 'GREAT' - Photos 'Great' by Professional Definitions and therefore technically and visually great
(Must have all or some of the qualities listed as a great photo is likely to need several to make it 'Great')

A Professional 'Great' photo has ...

great content
good photographic techniques applied
no bad quality elements such as overexposure etc
shows the photographer captured the image he was intending to create
a suggested story or strong focal point
great printing qualities meaning a full selection of tones from black to white
no distractions
good exposure, composition and lighting
transcends the traditional boundries of the craft and takes it to a new and exciting direction



PERSONAL 'GREAT' - Photos 'Great' by Personal, Emotional, Sentimental Definitions that simply are great regardless of technical aspects
(Must have all or some of the qualities listed as a great photo is likely to need several to make it 'Great')

A Personal 'Great' photo has ...

great content
good photographic techniques applied
appeals to you personally with less emphasis on quality
shows the photographer went well out their way to capture the image regardless of the quality attained
sentimental value
artistic intent and content
content not usually photographed


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

I'm sure there would be more to add to that ... ideas?

I'll update the list as we go. http://www.mtbdirt.com.au/home/smf/Smileys/classic/doctor.gif

[tomorrowstreasures]

From another thread ...
http://www.mtbdirt.com.au/home/smf/Smileys/classic/doctor.gif

with these adorable little guys, you are going to create stalkers of them!:eek:

[mindforge]

As with music I think that photography is perceived differently from different viewers. I might see a photograph of an old man in b/w and think, "It's a black and white of an old man." The other guy/gal might notice something I didn't or it might reach them in a different manner based on their life experiences.

Great photos appeal to lots of people. They hit home and people find something in them they like and usually the people find something a little different that appeases to them.

[Mad Aussie]

No one else have any views of what they feel makes a photo great? http://www.mtbdirt.com.au/home/smf/Smileys/classic/hmm.gif

[Marko]

Actually I have LOADS to say on this topic but I will try and keep it short and I must say i respectfully disagree with your 3rd and 4th points Mad Aussie. (a photo that appeals to you personally regardless of quality and a photo that shows the photographer went well out their way to capture the image regardless of the quality attained). For me quality is a key point - No quality = no greatness. Just cuz you tried hard doesn't cut it except in nursery school.

And just because it appeals to you personally...I don't buy that either. Greatness in anything further needs to be subdivided IMO. There's GREATNESS that the majority of people can agree on (Like the Grand Canyon, Mona Lisa, Catcher in The Rye, etc.) and personal opinion greatness (My 2 year old made this incredible abstract art with crayons and it's great because...it's just great... and if you think otherwise too bad.

For me - it makes sense to divide the answers into 2 groups of perceivers; photographers and everyone else.

Just like a good musician, car aficionado, or wine connoisseur knows a fine piece of music, car and wine respectively, a photographer also has better insight into what makes a great photograph. Of course all humans can look at a photo and say what makes it great, but their answers are not based on 'the rules or customs of the craft'.

For me a great photograph contains ALL of the following;
-A suggested story or strong focal point
-Great printing meaning a full selection of tones from black to white
- No distractions
- good exposure, composition and lighting

Obviously there will be some disagreement here - but that's part of the fun. :D

anyone else? ;)

[Travis]

The line of what makes a photo great really depends on the purpose of the photo. If it's abstract or fine art I would argue the greatness is measured by the satisfaction of the creator. The rules of the craft (of photography) are not as heavily measured.

Look at music.... Louis Armstongs vocals certainly didn't meet the rules of the craft.... Jimi Hendrix smashed the rules of the craft and most people thought his style was lunacy at the time.... Miles Davis..... Lenard Cohen doesn't belong in any choir... All of these people were able to transcend the traditional boundries of the craft and take it to a new and exciting direction.

I don't see this being and different in fine art photography. However, all other styles of photography must follow a fairly tight standard in order to achieve a successful image. All of which have been mentioned above.

[mindforge]

In some cases, I would have to say the thing that really makes a photo great.. is the viewer. Some people love some of my worst pictures because it has some sort of sentimental value. When a person looks at a photo, they bring their life time of experience with them and all that experience has subconscious impact. They might pick the picture with the old hound on the porch even though everything about it is inferior to the next guy. Maybe they grew up with a hound just like that and it had emotional connection.

[Travis]

In some cases, I would have to say the thing that really makes a photo great.. is the viewer. Some people love some of my worst pictures because it has some sort of sentimental value. When a person looks at a photo, they bring their life time of experience with them and all that experience has subconscious impact. They might pick the picture with the old hound on the porch even though everything about it is inferior to the next guy. Maybe they grew up with a hound just like that and it had emotional connection.

So true...

[Marko]

I also think 'Quality' with a capital Q has a somewhat universal appeal it is NOT personal as is 'personal quality' with a lower case q.

We all know what Quality is (Greatness) but have a hard time defining it. :twocents:

[tomorrowstreasures]

I think that if the question were what makes a photo fine art - the debate would be different than what you are doing here. What makes a photo great? Define great. Are you referring to emotionally great? technically great?

I do want to say that this discussion provides pause for considering points of view separate from one's own. Good work here.

[Mad Aussie]

Now we are cooking folks ;) Some debate and verying opinions. Excellent.

Those 4 points I put up weren't actually my own definitions, more observations because I didn't with every photo I saw that got an award from forums or even in well known magazines etc and it got me wondering.

Later when I get home from work (short day today :D ) I'll go through and correlate what's been said and adjust that list in my first post WITH some distinguished facet for the greatness from a pro/enthusiast perspective and a non photographic view point or perhaps more angled to Tomorrowstreasures suggestion of the definition of greatness which should be similar anyhow. Of course there's always crossover.

Any more thoughts very welcome.

[Marko]

I think that if the question were what makes a photo fine art - the debate would be different than what you are doing here. What makes a photo great? Define great. Are you referring to emotionally great? technically great?

I do want to say that this discussion provides pause for considering points of view separate from one's own. Good work here.

ahh but let's not get distracted....the title of the thread is what makes a photo great. What makes a photo fine art is a totally different beast.

I am referring to Great. If the photo is emotionally great but technically crap then IMO it can never be Great.

[tomorrowstreasures]

For me a great photograph contains ALL of the following;
-A suggested story or strong focal point
-Great printing meaning a full selection of tones from black to white
- No distractions
- good exposure, composition and lighting



Marko - these points I fully concur with. Within the thread there is a bit of quibbling about taste. That is from which I was coming from. Is greatness a taste issue? or is it a technical issue?

[Ben H]

If the photo is emotionally great but technically crap then IMO it can never be Great.

Interesting viewpoint. I don't share it... :)

From my viewpoint, For something to be artistically great, it has to become *more* than the sum of it's parts.

Yes, the technical side contributes. Yes, the artistic intent contributes. Often, *luck*, or chance, contributes. Sometimes happy accidents, and so on.

But it *is* possible to have a varying degree of these factors, and still be regarded as great. If you captured a candid shot, even acidentally, of, say, a leading figure in such a way that the capture, the moment and the subject combined to make a powerful artistic statement, even unintended, and it wasn't captured technically brilliantly - could it still become an iconic image and regarded highly by peers and the public alike?

I say yes...

Art has to communicate with the viewer - and it doesn't always have to be technically perfect in order to do this. Sometimes, something being less than technically perfect actually contributes to its artistic quality...

Edit: However, there are certain standards below which something is just going to always be poor - so it doesn't mean I think that someone can pick up a camera with no ability and expect to make great art with every snap... ;)

[Mad Aussie]

Ok ... updated that first post.

Have a look guys and tell if I'm doing ok with that.

Let me know if any of the list is incorrect or needs to be included in both lists etc.


Hey Marko ... you might end up with a unique resource for a future podcast here ;)

[Marko]

EDIT-23/01- Some good debate going now which forces me to be more specific.

For the purposes of this discussion ... a 'Great' photo will be separated and defined in the following two categories ....

Professional Great (photos that have are technically and visually well done) & Emotional Great (photos that simply are great regardless of technical aspects)
I may change those titles as we go along but for now they help us to move along.

PROFESSIONAL 'GREAT'
(Must have all or some of the qualities listed as a great photo is likely to need several to make it 'Great')

A Professional 'Great' photo has ...

great content
good photographic techniques applied
no bad quality elements such as overexposure etc
shows the photographer captured the image he was intending to create
a suggested story or strong focal point
great printing qualities meaning a full selection of tones from black to white
no distractions
good exposure, composition and lighting
transcends the traditional boundries of the craft and takes it to a new and exciting direction



EMOTIONAL 'GREAT'
(Must have all or some of the qualities listed as a great photo is likely to need several to make it 'Great')

An Emotional 'Great' photo has ...

great content
good photographic techniques applied
appeals to you personally with less emphasis on quality
shows the photographer went well out their way to capture the image regardless of the quality attained
sentimental value
artistic intent and content
content not usually photographed

Please keep in mind that there is no right answer here...

I like this list M.A. but i disagree with 2 points from
A Professional 'Great' photo has
- transcends the traditional boundries of the craft and takes it to a new and exciting direction - I disagree with this 100%. A strong conventional image can easily be Great.
- shows the photographer captured the image he was intending to create. I disagree here as well as 'happy accidents' can also create Great photographs

In terms of your second division "Emotional" I don't agree that it deserves it's own category. What's emotional to one person can be trite to another.

I can see a strong argument (even though I don't personally buy it) for Sentimentally Great or Personally great since who am I to say that a photo is NOT great IF it affects another human on a profound level...but like I said, I don't accept that as Greatness.


Marko - these points I fully concur with. Within the thread there is a bit of quibbling about taste. That is from which I was coming from. Is greatness a taste issue? or is it a technical issue?This question further strengthens my assertion that Greatness is NOT a taste issue, for me it's closer to a technical issue. (If it WAS a taste issue, defining it is a waste of time, again taste is personal and completely subjective. What I think we are searching for is something tangible and objective). A Great photo is still great EVEN if it doesn't appeal to a person's taste...that viewer should still be able to see the Greatness in it.

This is why I feel the Greatness should have an almost Universal appeal (you'll never get EVERYONE to agree but you will get MOST people to agree ESPECIALLY those that 'know' about photography.)

Again - Just my :twocents:

I do agree M.A. that this could indeed be an interesting podcast :)

[mindforge]

I think 50% Subject Matter + 35% Skill + 15% Luck = Great Photo.

Subject matter is a lot. Look at National Geographic photos. People love them so much because of the subject matter. What about that arab girl with the iconic green eyes that has been seen everywhere, a National Geographic icon. When that show was taken it was just another portrait shot of kids in the area, but to me that shot is fine art. Everything was perfect about it, pose, lighting and most important = the subject matter.

It also takes skill. A lot of skill. You have to get lighting right, exposure has to be spot on. You have to recognize opportunities, that to me is also skill. Recognizing when to take a shot is very important. Again, a lifetime goes into everytime a professional snaps one of these shots. The thousand portraits, the thousand landscapes that they have shot go into every pull of the shutter.

And luck. It takes a little luck too. Your photo needs to be seen by the right person. Sometimes, things just turn out right in your favor or something happens that gives you an opportunity to take a shot.

I think it takes skill but more importantly it takes a great subject. A good landscape photographer might spend all day getting to that perfect spot to shoot a valley. No one else ever gets that shot because they are not willing to hike all day to take it.

[Mad Aussie]

Please keep in mind that there is no right answer here...

I like this list M.A. but i disagree with 2 points from
A Professional 'Great' photo has
- transcends the traditional boundries of the craft and takes it to a new and exciting direction - I disagree with this 100%. A strong conventional image can easily be Great.
- shows the photographer captured the image he was intending to create. I disagree here as well as 'happy accidents' can also create Great photographs

I agree that a strong conventional photo can be great. I also agree that a 'happy accident', as you call it, can be great also. I don't think what I wrote contradicts that at all.
I did state that a 'Great' photograph (Must have all or some of the qualities listed as a great photo is likely to need several to make it 'Great')

Would you agree though that a great photo might have the following included in it?
- transcends the traditional boundries of the craft and takes it to a new and exciting direction
- shows the photographer captured the image he was intending to create.



In terms of your second division "Emotional" I don't agree that it deserves it's own category. What's emotional to one person can be trite to another.

I can see a strong argument (even though I don't personally buy it) for Sentimentally Great or Personally great since who am I to say that a photo is NOT great IF it affects another human on a profound level...but like I said, I don't accept that as Greatness.
Point taken and I understand your viewpoint but I think it's biased by your photographic professionalism, which we all respect of course.

However, I'd like to try to establish what makes a photo great from the perspective of both the professional/enthusiast and also the general photo lover/non professional sector as well.
As it was pointed out by yourself and TT, it's not going be valid to try to establish one list that covers both camps.

The definition of 'Great' is the bug bear here I guess so I need to further clarity and quantify the categories.

[Mad Aussie]

I think 50% Subject Matter + 35% Skill + 15% Luck = Great Photo.

Subject matter is a lot. Look at National Geographic photos. People love them so much because of the subject matter. What about that arab girl with the iconic green eyes that has been seen everywhere, a National Geographic icon. When that show was taken it was just another portrait shot of kids in the area, but to me that shot is fine art. Everything was perfect about it, pose, lighting and most important = the subject matter.

It also takes skill. A lot of skill. You have to get lighting right, exposure has to be spot on. You have to recognize opportunities, that to me is also skill. Recognizing when to take a shot is very important. Again, a lifetime goes into everytime a professional snaps one of these shots. The thousand portraits, the thousand landscapes that they have shot go into every pull of the shutter.

And luck. It takes a little luck too. Your photo needs to be seen by the right person. Sometimes, things just turn out right in your favor or something happens that gives you an opportunity to take a shot.

I think it takes skill but more importantly it takes a great subject. A good landscape photographer might spend all day getting to that perfect spot to shoot a valley. No one else ever gets that shot because they are not willing to hike all day to take it.

I don't think we could possibly narrow down a great photo to percentages like that.
As much as I hate to admit that luck could be a factor I guess it should be included. But is it luck? Or did the photographer put him/herself into a position that made the shot possible? Is it still luck then? Does it matter or is it necessary to split it this deeply? Perhaps just adding 'Luck' is enough afterall, every point could be debated and disected beyound recognition if we got too anal about it all.

The AFGHAN GIRL is the photo that mindforge is referring to and I have a DVD from Natioanl Geographic about this amazing photo and the amazing effort they went to find this orphaned child many years later. Retinal examination techniques etc were employed to accurately identify her.

This is the photo with a photo taken when they found her many years later ... as Marko would say ... "Her eyes really sing" ...
http://s.ngm.com/afghan-girl/images/afghan-girl.jpg
To read more about this http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/afghangirl
and a more brief account http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0311_020312_sharbat.html

[Marko]

This is a GREAT photo and a great example. (Even though it may not appeal to everyone's personal taste)



Would you agree though that a great photo might have the following included in it?
- transcends the traditional boundries of the craft and takes it to a new and exciting direction
- shows the photographer captured the image he was intending to create.
Do these 2 points matter for a shot like this or any GREAT shot? For me even if these 2 points are false for this photo, the photo is still GREAT....so for me, these points are not valid when describing the greatness of a photo. It's true that those two points 'can potentially' help push a photo into Greatness, but they are NOT fundamental to Greatness which is what I think we are looking for.


I think 50% Subject Matter + 35% Skill + 15% Luck = Great Photo.I think you may be onto something here with this point of view. I think I'd change the %ages to 65% skill 20% subject matter 15% luck though. CHOOSING the right subject matter is also a skill which is why I'm adding to skill and removing from subject matter.


However, I'd like to try to establish what makes a photo great from the perspective of both the professional/enthusiast and also the general photo lover/non professional sector as well.
As it was pointed out by yourself and TT, it's not going be valid to try to establish one list that covers both camps.

Not trying to be difficult here but if we REMOVE personal taste I think we can come up with 1 list for both camps. Even a 'lay photographer (regular person)' can tell the difference between a good and a great photograph and this is one of my key tangents. Great photographs are 'almost' Universal even though a viewer may not 'know' (according to our list) why it is Great.

The Afghan photo above would not be great if if was 2 stops underexposed and the eyes were blurry with a red cast. Both pros and non-photographers would stop referring to it as Great it this were the case.


BTW - I'm LOVIN' this discussion everyone :)

[Mad Aussie]

Oh yeh. Discusssions like this are what help us to see things from different perspectives and the more views we get the more perspective we get.

As said before ... there's no one right answer or opinion here.

I think we are back to that definiton of Great again and I think what I'll do is a) Keep the two lists BUT b) take 'Great' out of the second list and change it to something like 'Appealing' or something. More thought needed.

What we need now is some of you others to jump in and give us an opinion or ten on Marko's point so we see what other viewpoints are.

Am I leaning the 'right' way with I've said in this post?

Are we getting any closer to finding out exactly what a great photo is?

Who leaves the rubbish on the side of the highways?

Do I ask too many questions?

Why do you think that?

:goodvibes

[AcadieLibre]

Just listened to the podcast, first thing I have to say is people DO NOT have an innate ability to what is good quality and never mind greatness, I found in general and through most of my life it is the one thing most people do not possess. How many great artists, that includes, painters, musicians, photographers, etc. who spend their lives in abject poverty and pass on penniless. Then you have someone who can market themselves, convinces others of his greatness or the greatness of his work or that of someone else's and suddenly you have heard mentality of what is considered great. It is now popular and popular is in no way synonymous with greatness like most people assume, greatness stands the test of time.

What makes a great photo? usually a great photographer. I heard you and I have read this thread and what people think and now I will bore you all with my thoughts on it.

Skill plays 99.99% and happenstance is the other .01%. Skill includes the ability to see where you are going with the photo, walked in or on upon, searched out, staged, the basic image is in the photographers mind, he knows what he/she wants to achieve.

If I am out walking around with my camera and photo presents itself has nothing to do with luck but your brain is attuned to your surroundings at all times, so you did not luck out on the photo, because of your skills you were able to spot the photo and get the shot off..

Happenstance is just you walk into a situation, and low and behold you inadvertently walked into the wrong lounge and something is going on that would make a great photograph, I don't think luck has to do with anything, you just happened to be in the right place at the right time and your ability to scope out the photo is part of your skill as a photographer.


Subject is very important as well, you can be the best technical photographer but if you don't know what makes for a good subject well you will never have a great photograph. That again is skill, the ability to see something of interest in many shapes and forms.

Having the knowledge to take a technically proficient photograph is also a skill the photographer must have, at that point if he uses them for the shot or knows which rules to break to achieve the image he/she has envisioned is as important as the rest of it.


Greatness is so very subjective and it is a very over used term.


I could go on but sure no one wants that ....... :D .. if it reads poorly just let me know, just one of my regular bouts of insomnia and I had to pair it down from 3 or 4 times this length so people might actually read my diatribe, so the editing may be horrid, my apologies in advance :D

[Mad Aussie]

Nope ... it reads just fine.

[jjeling]

Nice job AL. I agree with you 100% on what you've said.

[edbayani11]

a great photo is something that's superior in all aspects even tho the photographer was just lucky to press the shutter at the right time, and a great number of people's senses are affected when viewing it.
.....remember this is only my opinion.

[Marko]

Your post is extremely well written A.L. and I agree with most of it except the ability to detect quality when we see it. I do believe most people have it. We use it when we make sensory choices all time. When we touch cashmere, it feels better than polyester and toblerone is better than dairy milk and Ansel adams is better than my cousin Vinny who always chops the heads off.

Sure there may be artists greater than Ansel that live in obscurity, but that doesn't mean that IF anyone saw their works they would be any less impressed; they just haven't had the opportunity to see those works yet.

And you are correct about the skill. Ansel spent way more time than my cousin vinny both taking and processing the pic....and the average guy on the street will like Ansel's shots better because of this skill.
I know I'm repeating myself...and instigating/provoking :p