What makes a good photograph?

[ernie]

Hey,

Just as the topic title says: what makes, according to you, a good picture? I know this is a question that's probably not answered in one or two lines/pages but I'm trying to get a general idea of what photographers look for when they take a picture. Just to get some tips and pointers composition and color wise, whatever, being an amateur to all of this. (Plus I think it'd make a nice topic)
So post your thoughts, and maybe post a picture along to make clear what you're talking about?

- Ernie

 

[shingfan]

a photograph that many people would love.....that's what makes it good......i dont think you can make a simple rule to classify them.......photography is really subjective.........you can have a photo that you think is good but many others dont like it.....so what you think is good....might not be really that good

 

[ernie]

Ok good, opinions may vary but that doesn't have to stop you from giving your idea of a good photograph right?

 

[LaFoto]

Well, Ernie, only earlier today did I post the question "Is there something like 'objective critisism'" into the Photographic Discussions. And the replies so far go in the direction that there is no such thing.
That is why I believe that outside such technical things as proper exposure and focussing there are no "objective things" for a photographer to look for. I am still waiting for some of the learned artists among us (those who really read the Fine Arts in Uni or did photography courses in college and had teachers and all that) to reply and tell me what they were taught, but ... it seems like the ideas of what makes a good piece of art (painting, drawing, photo, film take etc) are as varied as people are individuals, and critique and liking of the same is only and very subjective.

Shall I merge this and the other thread?

 

[Torus34]

I could probably write a small book on the topic. It's not something to be answered in a few sentences.

 

[NYBrit]

How do you even put that into a few words. So many things can make a good photograph. A beautiful woman. A beautiful sunset. A beautiful landscape.
But it doesn't have to be beautiful to be good. Look at all the urban landscape photos. All those reportage B & W shots. Old things. Old people.
Good composition and an interesting subject is what makes a good photograph at the end of the day. Even a landscape shot can be ruined if it isn't composed right.

 

[Goran Katic]

Some people look to much on tehnical side, but I think that even "tehnicaly" bad photo can look beatiful.

 

[shingfan]

Ok good, opinions may vary but that doesn't have to stop you from giving your idea of a good photograph right?

i've said it.....is hard to draw a line when defining good photograph.....but i can say.....to me.....a bad photograph is one with bad composition...ugly color.......either terribly underexpose or overexpose

 

[f8lranger4x4]

I think that a good photo tells about the artist, when I try to tell a story. The biggest part of the story is what you like and what you wanna see.
check out this sight it may help on this matter.
http://photoinf.com/General/KODAK/guidelines_for_better_photographic_composition_rule_of_thirds.html

 

[RacePhoto]

Hey,

Just as the topic title says: what makes, according to you, a good picture? I know this is a question that's probably not answered in one or two lines/pages but I'm trying to get a general idea of what photographers look for when they take a picture. Just to get some tips and pointers composition and color wise, whatever, being an amateur to all of this. (Plus I think it'd make a nice topic)
So post your thoughts, and maybe post a picture along to make clear what you're talking about?

- Ernie

Technical "good" can be looked at in many ways. If you are looking for something like, color, sharpness, contrast and composition, that's the answer. However sometimes you don't want sharpness, or maybe don't want high contrast. Possibly you want sepia or B&W.That leaves composition.

A picture that tells the story it's intended to tell... is a GOOD picture.

It's that simple.

 

[Goran Katic]

yep, tehnical side doesnt makes a good photo.

 

[rmh159]

My take on this... if there were an answer to this question than photography wouldn't be art. Asking questions like this and hearing people's opinions only tells you about those people themselves as there is no "answer" to what quality art is. That's the beauty of art. It's subject, debatable, what's garbage to one means the world to another... it's undefined.

I do know that it has nothing to do with mass appeal, beauty, etc.

 

[txshutterbug]

As stated, there are the "technical" aspects of making a good photograph - good composition, lighting, etc., but a great photograph needs to have "heart!" Good luck.

 

[brighteyesphotos]

Technically, there's a lot that makes a "good" photograph - the colors, the composition, the lighting, the contrast and tonal ranges (for B&W). But in the end, it's the story, the feeling, the effect a photograph would have on a person. And each person brings his or her own history and background to a picture. You can put 5 different people in front of the same photograph and get 5 different opinions and intrepretations of it. Does that mean the photograph is "good"? Yes and no. Just because one person doesn't like it doesn't mean it is not a good photograph. Technical errors will only lessen the impact a photograph would have, especially among a group such as this.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The first thing you need to do is to define 'good'.
If you are doing the job for money then 'good' is what the client/Art Director likes and will pay you for.
If you are doing it for love then 'good' is what you like.
Basically 'good' can be defined as 'what does the job you want it to do'.
There are, however, fundamental principles but they are not something you can write about in a few lines or explain in one sentence. But I could teach you in a year or two. The first step - and it is a big one - is to learn how to look at pictures (and not be influenced by the subject matter).
If there were not these basic 'rules' then there would be no consensus, and no picture would ever be said to be universally 'good' so we would have no need for Museums and Art Galleries. But never forget that being in a Museum or Art Gallery is no guarantee that something is 'good'.