What is your one non-negotiable quality of a good photo?

[chuasam]

What is that one quality that makes you decide that a photo is good (or even great)?
Mine is a photo that draws me in and makes me want to keep looking and looking and stare longer at a picture.

 

[slackercruster]

What is that one quality that makes you decide that a photo is good (or even great)?
Mine is a photo that draws me in and makes me want to keep looking and looking and stare longer at a picture.

+1

 

[sscarmack]

I use to think a good photo had to be in photo, properly exposed and have vivid colors...


Well, the more I learn about photography is, you can have a out of focus, over exposed, desaturated dull photo and it can still be a great photo.


As long as that photo connects with the viewer and sparks emotion, its a great photo.

 

[rexbobcat]

I guess my nonnegotiable point is that the photo has to seem genuine...

That's kind of abstract, but...The only way I can explain it is that I have never found a photo of a man kissing a woman's forehead to be a good photo. It feels forced every time.

 

[Light Guru]

As long as that photo connects with the viewer and sparks emotion, its a great photo.

^^^THAT^^^

Second to that you do to want anything distracting from the intended emotion. Over processed images are a good example of this. The processing gets a reaction, but is it the emotion that you want others to have when viewing the image.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well, the more I learn about photography is, you can have a out of focus, over exposed, desaturated dull photo and it can still be a great photo.

So there is hope for me afterall! Wooohoo!

Lol

 

[Vince.1551]

Visual impact


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Light Guru]

Visual impact

Not all visual impact is good. For example a horribly over processed HDR image has visual impact, but it still is horrible.

 

[Vince.1551]

That's not visual impact. Thats visual atrocity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Light Guru]

Visual impact

Not all visual impact is good. For example a horribly over processed HDR image has visual impact, but it still is horrible.

That's not visual impact. Thats visual atrocity.

It's visual and it has an impact (although it's not a good impact) therefore it fits the definition of visual impact.

 

[480sparky]

That it end up equal to the vision I had when I was standing in the field looking at it.

 

[keyseddie]

Will it sell. Will people want to hang it on their wall in a large size for 10 years.

 

[chuasam]

Will it sell. Will people want to hang it on their wall in a large size for 10 years.

I've seen some great photos that I would never want on my wall. Take the iconic photos from the Vietnam war. Or brutal photos from riots and the various wars.

Time and context also mean a lot. Photos of people and buildings that mean little in the 50s suddenly become artsy and relevant 60 years later.

I've seen horridly bad photos of a loved one displayed on walls. Horrid as in cropped from a much larger image with half a shoulder still in the shot. Blurry and grainy from over enlargement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[minicoop1985]

Character.

 

[Solarflare]

What is that one quality that makes you decide that a photo is good (or even great)?

It should impress me.

Since photography is a creative field, thats the only definition thats possible.

You said the same, with different words.