exactly what makes a great photo?

SquarePeg · Jul 6, 2021

unpopular said:
an obnoxious gimmick, preferably one that’s overly sentimental or cliche, bright colors and shot under good natural lighting that you don’t actually have any photographic or artistic control over - but will gladly take credit for nonetheless.

In fact, it doesn’t really matter what you’re photographing, so long as it’s shot between may and September between 5-7 PM under partly cloudy skies, ideally just after a light rainstorm.

Seems like you have some issues…

unpopular · Jul 6, 2021

SquarePeg said:
Seems like you have some issues

by issues you mean thoughtless, uninspired snapshots of Half Dome, why yes, yes I do.

SquarePeg · Jul 6, 2021

unpopular said:
by issues you mean thoughtless, uninspired snapshots of Half Dome, why yes, yes I do.

If you’re referring to someone else’s photos then I have to ask why you care? If you’re referring to your own then I understand that we all feel uninspired sometimes and the only way to work through it is to keep shooting until it comes back.

unpopular · Jul 7, 2021

The question was what makes a great photo, and I provided a sarcastic response.

Frequently photography that gains a lot of popular attention is cliche, uninspired and overdone and relies on qualities that the photographer has no legitimate claim to. Go to any national park anywhere in the world and you'll find gaggles of photographers literally photographing the exact same thing that has been photographed over and over in the exact same way.

It's lazy.

Yes. I do care about photography and visual art; I've dedicated a lot of time, energy, education and eventually my career. So yes, my comment was sarcastic and snide, but we can applaud the eye candy over and over, we can praise the "good light" and "pretty colors" ... or we can encourage one another to push boundaries and challenge ourselves and each other to actually say something that's worth saying.

After all, "[...] quality is not the product of a machine", right?

But the result of this effort won't ever be "great photography"; great photography is something created by machines programmed to create great photographs.

weepete · Jul 7, 2021

unpopular said:
The question was what makes a great photo, and I provided a sarcastic response.

Frequently photography that gains a lot of popular attention is cliche, uninspired and overdone and relies on qualities that the photographer has no legitimate claim to. Go to any national park anywhere in the world and you'll find gaggles of photographers literally photographing the exact same thing that has been photographed over and over in the exact same way.

It's lazy.

Yes. I do care about photography and visual art; I've dedicated a lot of time, energy, education and eventually my career. So yes, my comment was sarcastic and snide, but we can applaud the eye candy over and over, we can praise the "good light" and "pretty colors" ... or we can encourage one another to push boundaries and challenge ourselves and each other to actually say something that's worth saying.

After all, "[...] quality is not the product of a machine", right?

But the result of this effort won't ever be "great photography"; great photography is something created by machines programmed to create great photographs.

You do have a general point, though I do take issue with the "shot under good natural lighting that you don’t actually have any photographic or artistic control over".

One of the most challenging aspects of landscape photography is dealing with situations you don't have control over. Sometimes it involves being dedicated and revisiting places until you get the right lighting which involves a dedication, planning, and determination that you don't need in a controlled environment. Sure, there are places in the world that have predictable weather and lighting conditions, and I'm pretty sure you had the El Capitan (or similar) shot somewhere in your head when you wrote that. Maybe that's a place you can rock up to and get easily, I don't know. A lot of places in the world don't, and you need to quickly change and find compositions and lighting that works. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it a bad photo, and just because you've seen similar shots doesn't make it poor either.

If you strive to take a photograh of something else that's never been photographed you'll never take a shot of anything.

So, to answer the OP, a great photograph can be many things, a great photographer can be too. It just depends on the measuring stick you use.

Rickbb · Jul 7, 2021

unpopular said:
The question was what makes a great photo, and I provided a sarcastic response.

Frequently photography that gains a lot of popular attention is cliche, uninspired and overdone and relies on qualities that the photographer has no legitimate claim to. Go to any national park anywhere in the world and you'll find gaggles of photographers literally photographing the exact same thing that has been photographed over and over in the exact same way.

They aren’t photographers, they are tourists taking snapshots.

unpopular · Jul 7, 2021

weepete said:
You do have a general point, though I do take issue with the "shot under good natural lighting that you don’t actually have any photographic or artistic control over".

One of the most challenging aspects of landscape photography is dealing with situations you don't have control over. Sometimes it involves being dedicated and revisiting places until you get the right lighting which involves a dedication, planning, and determination that you don't need in a controlled environment. Sure, there are places in the world that have predictable weather and lighting conditions, and I'm pretty sure you had the El Capitan (or similar) shot somewhere in your head when you wrote that. Maybe that's a place you can rock up to and get easily, I don't know. A lot of places in the world don't, and you need to quickly change and find compositions and lighting that works. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it a bad photo, and just because you've seen similar shots doesn't make it poor either.

If you strive to take a photograh of something else that's never been photographed you'll never take a shot of anything.

So, to answer the OP, a great photograph can be many things, a great photographer can be too. It just depends on the measuring stick you use.

What I am saying is that ‘good natural lighting’ isn’t something a photographer we take credit for but is often something people attribute to the photographer.

Worse yet, ‘golden-hour’ photography is not only aesthetically unchallenging, but also an exposure at 7pm after a light summer rainstorm requires virtually zero technical skill whatsoever.

This is kind of my point though. ‘Great Photography’ is often about the subject, not about the photograph or even the story or narrative it tells.

Now, I do agree that the Modernist obsession with originality isn’t important (and ultimately futile), though what I’m trying to say is that a photographer should aim to say something beyond the same thing that’s been said before.

Nodding in agreement about Yellowstone or Yosemite makes ‘Great Photography’ precisely because we can all agree that El Captain and Half Dome and Yellowstone Falls are spectacular - if that’s what you’re saying that’s Ofcourse fine, but saying it in the same way that has always been said - if that’s the goal - then it’s not so much about the exploration and discovery of the world we share so much as it’s what we’re conditioned to believe we already know - it’s not about our experiences nor even really the experience of the audience. in my opinion this last point makes it much, much worse.

Rather it’s about reinforcing a myth in 4:5 aspect ratio. At some point it’s a photograph of a photograph.

AlanKlein · Jul 8, 2021

unpopular said:
What I am saying is that ‘good natural lighting’ isn’t something a photographer we take credit for but is often something people attribute to the photographer.

Worse yet, ‘golden-hour’ photography is not only aesthetically unchallenging, but also an exposure at 7pm after a light summer rainstorm requires virtually zero technical skill whatsoever.

This is kind of my point though. ‘Great Photography’ is often about the subject, not about the photograph or even the story or narrative it tells.

Now, I do agree that the Modernist obsession with originality isn’t important (and ultimately futile), though what I’m trying to say is that a photographer should aim to say something beyond the same thing that’s been said before.

Nodding in agreement about Yellowstone or Yosemite makes ‘Great Photography’ precisely because we can all agree that El Captain and Half Dome and Yellowstone Falls are spectacular - if that’s what you’re saying that’s Ofcourse fine, but saying it in the same way that has always been said - if that’s the goal - then it’s not so much about the exploration and discovery of the world we share so much as it’s what we’re conditioned to believe we already know - it’s not about our experiences nor even really the experience of the audience. in my opinion this last point makes it much, much worse.

Rather it’s about reinforcing a myth in 4:5 aspect ratio. At some point it’s a photograph of a photograph.

I understand your point about meaningful pictures that say something. But we all can't be Shakespeare. Nor want to be.

There's nothing wrong with beauty for beauty's sake. Getting out to a magnificent park or just a nice place where you live when the lighting is grand and enjoying God and nature while trying to capture its beauty has a lot to say for just that. Taking home a part of it and hanging on your wall is surely a lot better than the angst we have to live with in public and private a lot of the time. Who needs to capture that when I'm out just shooting my camera? Photography for many of us is to escape from trying to make a point. We already spend our working lives doing that most of the time.

There's a lot to admire about magic hour.

unpopular · Jul 8, 2021

AlanKlein said:
There's a lot to admire about magic hour.

As I wrote, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, what you say doesn't have to have some deep, coded meaning in order to be worth saying. The problem is that cliches and tropes are the creation of man - not the creation of God.

we all can't be Shakespeare

Perhaps, but this thread is about Shakespeare, isn’t it?

Grandpa Ron · Jul 8, 2021

Unpopular,

Oh if only some magic formula existed;

a lot of us would be rich.

Skill + Luck = Success..... I will let others debate which is most important.

unpopular · Jul 8, 2021

Grandpa Ron said:
Unpopular,

Oh if only some magic formula existed; a lot of us would be rich.

Skill + Luck = Success..... I will let others debate which is most important.

just put a baby in a watermelon or something.

JoeW · Jul 9, 2021

I think the conversation has strayed off the question. The question is about what makes a great photograph.

And there are two factors that determine if a photograph is a great one. And no, it's not if it's an image of a lovely scene. Those are just random snapshots and you're shooting Yellowstone vs. your garbage can.

1. Composition. A great photograph shows some compositional elements that make it visually compelling or draws attention or makes you linger or brings attention and your focus to it. It can be a very mundane scene--but visually composed and it grabs your attention. Brandt, Eggleston and Mary Ellen Marks all shot stuff that was compositionally strong even if the subject was...ordinary or banal or common. If a photographer has chosen wisely, then he/she has picked compositional elements to emphasize that make you go "damn--that's good." And others saw the same scene but didn't think to change the WB or the ISO or framed the subject different or didn't change the perspective or missed the leading line or the "S" curve or didn't use color wisely or didn't wait 10 minutes for the sun to go behind the could. Composition.

2. Timing. And by this, I mean you happen to be in the right place at the right time and are prepared to capture (I hate that concept but it fits in this case) the moment. The classic for me is Robert Capa's photo of the soldier in the surf at Omaha beach. Look at the photo--it's not in color, it's grainy, it's out of focus, you can't tell what is water vs. an object (or even a body). But damn does it capture the moment. It conveys danger and movement and threat and isolation. It's one of the most iconic photos of WW2. These kind of "timing" pictures that are great photos are often of significant events. I don't mean posed events, I mean something where you go "that is a slice of history" or "that tells a story about a significant person or event." Think "Tank Man" in Beijing after Tiananmen Square. Think of Yousef Karsh's portrait of Churchill after he snatched his cigar away. Think some of the best Pulitzer Prize photo journalism photos you've seen--they're often a function of timing, the people involved, and the event.

So that's my answer to "what makes a great photo?"

SquarePeg · Jul 9, 2021

What makes a great photo is the emotion it invokes.

unpopular · Jul 9, 2021

JoeW said:
1. Composition

composition though can get carried away:

certainly there needs to be structure, but structure can take many forms, and there’s a tendency to use whats essential pseudoscientific western numerology as some golden rule (pun intended).

Although often even more entrenched in Western tradition, musicians I think have a stronger vocabulary for composition, with ideas of tension and release and narrative that we visual artists can learn a lot from if we can translate them from the temporal domain of music to the spatial domain of picture.