exactly what makes a great photo?

[JoeW]

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.

I disagree. We're defining composition differently. You're assuming there are set rules that must be obeyed! I'm saying there are about 1,000 rules regarding visual art. And it's impossible to follow them all. So wise decisions about composition (when to "fill the frame" vs. when to "use negative space." When to go "high key" vs. when to "use chiaroscuro"--all of those are composition decisions.

To not use composition is to take snapshots.

 

[unpopular]

I disagree. We're defining composition differently. You're assuming there are set rules that must be obeyed! I'm saying there are about 1,000 rules regarding visual art. And it's impossible to follow them all. So wise decisions about composition (when to "fill the frame" vs. when to "use negative space." When to go "high key" vs. when to "use chiaroscuro"--all of those are composition decisions.

To not use composition is to take snapshots.

I think we agree. I just wanted to point this out.

-

As for snapshots I think it has more to do with function. A snapshot is intended to augment memories, it’s intended to be meaningful only to the people that were present when the image was taken. Almost everything I do is intentionally composed ("well composed" is a matter of opinion), it's something I can't not do and at this point I even something I have to put in any effort into doing. But that doesn't mean I can elevate every snapshot I take as something 'great'.

Journalism is intended to communicate something about the subject, to reveal the subject to people some meaning without having actually been there to witness it. Journalism is about communication and documentation. The goal of the journalist is to capture the pivotal moment that tells the whole of the story in one single frame.

Fine Art is intended to examine or explore the subject, to have an open dialog about its meaning, or to exist as an object on its own that is independent of the subject. This dialog does not have to be profound, it could be as simple as 'this flower is pretty' - we're examining the beauty of a flower, and that's ok. However, I personally believe the more in depth that dialog is the more interesting the art.

None of these functions are inherently inferior within the context of their intent. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with snapshots. You can have a great snapshot, but it won't be anything special for anyone else. The problem is when photographers attempt force a function onto the audience and dictate on our behalf the relationship we’re expected to have.

Of course ultimately it’s going to depend on the audience an our relationship with the image. That’s why I wrote what I did.

‘Great Photography’ is something easy to digest, something we all can agree with and ultimately something we all already know. A successful image, though is one that meets it's functional objective.

In my opinion one of my most "successful" images outright unsettled and even offended many of the viewers, yet was just a photograph of an empty wall, a door and a dirty hand print. But people *hated it*, even strongly so. It generated a lot of very visceral reactions in people. This dialog between the image and the viewer was what made it successful, not so much the composition or subject itself.

 

[zulu42]

My mom has a really keen eye for identifying great photos

 

[JoeW]

I think we agree. I just wanted to point this out.

-

As for snapshots I think it has more to do with function. A snapshot is intended to augment memories, it’s intended to be meaningful only to the people that were present when the image was taken. Almost everything I do is intentionally composed ("well composed" is a matter of opinion), it's something I can't not do and at this point I even something I have to put in any effort into doing. But that doesn't mean I can elevate every snapshot I take as something 'great'.

Journalism is intended to communicate something about the subject, to reveal the subject to people some meaning without having actually been there to witness it. Journalism is about communication and documentation. The goal of the journalist is to capture the pivotal moment that tells the whole of the story in one single frame.

Fine Art is intended to examine or explore the subject, to have an open dialog about its meaning, or to exist as an object on its own that is independent of the subject. This dialog does not have to be profound, it could be as simple as 'this flower is pretty' - we're examining the beauty of a flower, and that's ok. However, I personally believe the more in depth that dialog is the more interesting the art.

None of these functions are inherently inferior within the context of their intent. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with snapshots. You can have a great snapshot, but it won't be anything special for anyone else. The problem is when photographers attempt force a function onto the audience and dictate on our behalf the relationship we’re expected to have.

Of course ultimately it’s going to depend on the audience an our relationship with the image. That’s why I wrote what I did.

‘Great Photography’ is something easy to digest, something we all can agree with and ultimately something we all already know. A successful image, though is one that meets it's functional objective.

In my opinion one of my most "successful" images outright unsettled and even offended many of the viewers, yet was just a photograph of an empty wall, a door and a dirty hand print. But people *hated it*, even strongly so. It generated a lot of very visceral reactions in people. This dialog between the image and the viewer was what made it successful, not so much the composition or subject itself.

Well, I think I get your point (though I may be wrong). But I don't think you get mine.

For instance, the example you gave at the end is a perfect illustration of my point--it proves what I'm saying. Composition is key. Your photo of the wall, door, and handprint speaks to the power of composition--it's all about composition. The resulting photo produced a reaction (which you liked--even if it was negative). If you had decided to shoot it so there was also a table, a cobweb, a broom, a coat rack, and an armoire in the picture with the wall, door, and handprint, I bet you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction--it just would have looked like a bunch of clutter.

 

[flyingPhoto]

Some of the greatest images in photographic history have been nothing more then "snap shots". Yet due to the subject on film, and with personal experiences, they became something more then a photo.

The best known one would be the execution photo The Surprising True Story Behind The Iconic Saigon Execution Photo

Just a mere snap shot of the execution of an enemy communist military officer that had helped kill 30 to 50 civilians the night before. As part of the norths launch of the tet offensive plan to kill as many southern vietnamese military officials and families as possible.

A lawful execution, yet it became the defined moment the United States is considered to have lost the war.

Yet unnumbered photos of the communists killing civilians and american personnel go un seen, un published.

 

[unpopular]

Well, I think I get your point (though I may be wrong). But I don't think you get mine.

For instance, the example you gave at the end is a perfect illustration of my point--it proves what I'm saying. Composition is key. Your photo of the wall, door, and handprint speaks to the power of composition--it's all about composition. The resulting photo produced a reaction (which you liked--even if it was negative). If you had decided to shoot it so there was also a table, a cobweb, a broom, a coat rack, and an armoire in the picture with the wall, door, and handprint, I bet you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction--it just would have looked like a bunch of clutter.

Composition is important, like I said there has to be structure to make sense; but I don't think it's what makes a photograph successful. I've taken plenty of well composed photographs that aren't very good, and I've taken photos which the entire point was to lack any structure at all.

I maintain that the success of an image depends on the interaction and dialog between the photograph-object and the audience.

 

[weepete]

I think it can be boiled down to a single thing......how well does a photohraph fulfil it's intended purpose?

 

[JoeW]

Composition is important, like I said there has to be structure to make sense; but I don't think it's what makes a photograph successful. I've taken plenty of well composed photographs that aren't very good, and I've taken photos which the entire point was to lack any structure at all.

I maintain that the success of an image depends on the interaction and dialog between the photograph-object and the audience.

You're agreeing with me completely. You just don't realize it.

First, there is no such thing as a "well composed photograph" in the manner that you refer to. There is no such thing as a "well composed photograph" where you follow all the rules. You can't--it's impossible. Instead, you have to choose which composition elements to use and which to ignore or violate.

A photographer who deliberately composes a photo is someone who is saying "I'm going to utilize these 5-10 visual rules and ignore these 500 visual rules." You say your photo was "well composed." I'd argue no. I don't doubt you composed it. But you chose the wrong elements to focus on and thus it flopped. So it wasn't "well composed."

What you're really saying is that you followed some rules. Any time you do something other than a snapshot, even if it's as basic as getting closer or further away or changing the DoF, you're engaging in some composition. But you seem to think "well, because I got closer or further away/adjusted my WB or ISO that means it will be a great photo." No, all it means is that you didn't take a snapshot.

You then say you took photos that lacked any structure at all. And your point is? That's still composition. The difference between a picture with no composition and one with is called a snapshot. Any time you make any deliberate choice to do something to alter it (get closer, change exposure compensation), you're doing some composing. None of that means it will be a great shot. But what makes a great shot (other than timing/syncronicity/events) is always composition.

 

[unpopular]

on one side you seem to be saying composition matters and is one quality of a great photograph, but on the other you're saying composition is inevitable and yet still good composition is contrived. So which is it?

What I'm saying is that composition is the language that images exist in. That's it. Composition adds clarity and structure. You can write a well composed book, you can have excellent command over language, but that doesn't make you Steinbeck. Grapes of Wrath isn't great literature because it was well written, of course it is, The Grapes of Wrath is great literature because it has something to say and written well enough to convey those ideas.

Naturally, on the other hand you can have all the ideas in the world, but if you can't structure those ideas in a cohesive way, then it doesn't matter.

Also, I'll point out, your other qualities of "great photography", timing, synchronicity and event ... I personally have zero interest in the temporal space of my subjects, but rather I am more interested in ideas such as permanence, liminality and stillness. I don't see my photography as a "slice in time", but rather an appropriation of context.

 

[JoeW]

on one side you seem to be saying composition matters and is one quality of a great photograph, but on the other you're saying composition is inevitable and yet still good composition is contrived. So which is it?

What I'm saying is that composition is the language that images exist in. That's it. Composition adds clarity and structure. You can write a well composed book, you can have excellent command over language, but that doesn't make you Steinbeck. Grapes of Wrath isn't great literature because it was well written, of course it is, The Grapes of Wrath is great literature because it has something to say and written well enough to convey those ideas.

Naturally, on the other hand you can have all the ideas in the world, but if you can't structure those ideas in a cohesive way, then it doesn't matter.

Also, I'll point out, your other qualities of "great photography", timing, synchronicity and event ... I personally have zero interest in the temporal space of my subjects, but rather I am more interested in ideas such as permanence, liminality and stillness. I don't see my photography as a "slice in time", but rather an appropriation of context.

No, I'm not saying composition is inevitable. What you are guilty of is claiming that I say if a photo has composition, then it's a great photo. Nope.

For instance, any time you crop a photo, you've engaged in at least some modest level of composition. That doesn't make it great. There are effective examples of composition and ineffective levels of it. You said some of your "unstructured" photos got the most dialog. If you made any decisions either pre-shoot or post-production about what to include or exclude, what was the focal point,. DoF, what lines to emphasize, how to use light, if you filled the frame or used negative space, where the horizon fell, if it felt busy or passive, if the light was cold or warm, the level of contrast, or any one of a hundred other compositional questions than you engaged in composing your photo. None of that means your composition was effective or engaging.

As I said earlier, there are two things that determine if a photo is great:
--composition (the thought that goes in to the photo to compose the shot and/or the post-production elements) is the photo connects or resonates or stimulates with some viewers. Or...
--the timing, nature, subject of the photo (like a slice of history or a remarkable event). Those are the Pulitzer Prize photo winners we see like Tank Man.

Don't use literature examples--they're misleading and don't apply. We're talking VISUAL ART. For instance, the subconscious impact of a diagonal line. When you talk about language and written words, you're confusing the issue.

 

[unpopular]

Some of the greatest images in photographic history have been nothing more then "snap shots". Yet due to the subject on film, and with personal experiences, they became something more then a photo.

Yes! This is why the artists’ intent is unimportant to the function and meaning of the image. After a work is completed the artist becomes the audience and his or her opinion is as valid as anyone else’s.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

What makes a great photograph or any piece of art is to subjective to classify.

My prime example was a day at and art galley. I was captivated with the Hudson River School of art. 19th century river valley scenes that were simply captivating.

In another gallery a group of people were standing around admiring some impressionist art work. I founds the impressionist work little more than lines and scribbles on canvas but these folks were also captivated.

I could never afford a Hudson River Valley painting, but I would not waist the time, carting home to an impressionist print.

Many of the folks I know would trade either, for a good photo of their grand kids.

"Good Art" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Dave Maciak]

In my case its luck........

There is a photo of a little girl, horrible burns from napalm, in Vietnam. The photographer simply turned around, made 2 quick snaps. Pure luck; right place, right time. photo titled "Napalm Girl." Won the Pulitzer Prize.
Yes luck is a big factor.
BTW little girl is alive and still going through surgeries.

 

[flyingPhoto]

There is a photo of a little girl, horrible burns from napalm, in Vietnam. The photographer simply turned around, made 2 quick snaps. Pure luck; right place, right time. photo titled "Napalm Girl." Won the Pulitzer Prize.
Yes luck is a big factor.
BTW little girl is alive and still going through surgeries.

And the first time child pornography made the front page world wide and won a pulitzer.

as sturges and mann most likely didnt win one

 

[AlanKlein]

There is a photo of a little girl, horrible burns from napalm, in Vietnam. The photographer simply turned around, made 2 quick snaps. Pure luck; right place, right time. photo titled "Napalm Girl." Won the Pulitzer Prize.
Yes luck is a big factor.
BTW little girl is alive and still going through surgeries.

Being in a war zone isn't luck.