What is a bad photograph?

[ryunin]

A few days ago I gave a link to my photography web at a forum and one person gave a strange comment. I mean I have been discussing photography for 4 years or so - not a longtime but I love to discuss so there. I have heard ppl say things like it's a kitch, the print is poor quality, it is boring... but never ever I heard a person experienced in photography says something as vague as "bad".

But it is interesting. The longer I am engaged in photography the more I begin to appreciate any photograph where I feel the person who took and made it did it sincerely. Not a quick shot like you buy a compact camera and take hundreds of pictures on holiday or you think you are going to be a big time artsy photographer and you fail to focus on what you want to focus on. But a photograph that was taken with your sincere attitude, knowing what you want and why you want it and if you dont' know, you don't pretend you do know. So from there I get my definiton of "bad photography". Something that was taken or printed without caring, without genuine interest in the subject, without your personal, individual involvement, something you took to pretend something or to imitate something or when you had absolutely no reason to take that photograph or what it expresses is just sheer lack of human caring. And technical aspects - I have my own very simple definition of lack of technical qualities - whatever went wrong technically and didn't help your sincere intention to create an image that reflects your sincere interest in the subject.

What do you think?

 

[pgriz]

What makes for a bad song? or a bad piece of writing? Each medium has a set of more or less accepted standards that could be considered the minimum points of "quality". Violate too many of the basic minimums, and few will want to work through to the end to see if the item is worth it. In that sense, an item is bad if its "package" dissuades you from trying to understand the contents. For an image, that would be elements of focus, exposure, contrast, and subject placement that when poorly executed, immediately stop a potential viewer from engaging further with the image.

Then we have the ones that are technically very good, but do not connect emotionally. This is true for images, music, writing, etc. In each medium, the lack of connection dooms the piece to indifference.

Sincerity, as you referenced in your post, does not in itself absolve the image-maker from the responsibility to craft an image which is accessible to the viewer. That means, to me, that the obvious irritants are safely put away, and the image is presented in a way that invites the viewer's participation. Sincerity, coupled with technical proficiency, and some talent, will often manifest itself in a compelling image. Sincerity without the technical skill is desire without finess, or strength without guidance. Another way of saying it is sincere competence is much more attractive than sincere incompetence.

 

[o hey tyler]

I am willing to bet that this was a bad photo. Even though I know Leica Fanboys will say it was still perfect.

http://www.funny2k.com/sites/defaul...ctures/eric-clapton-camera-fail-lens-cap1.jpg

 

[chuasam]

Here are some samples of bad photographs

 

[Derrel]

It's hard to define a bad photograph...but you will know one when you see one!!!

 

[Zembonez]

I've taken a lot of bad photographs.

 

[littlefish]

A bad photgraph is very subjective. It really depends on the viewer. The photographer, especially the amatur will look at there photo and think it's really good. They want it to be good. They want to think that they did a great job. There family and friends told them it was a fantastic photo. Basically compared to there's it probably is a really great photo.

The problems lies in the fact that they have been told they take good photo's. No one who really understands photography has really seen it or critqued it for them. When they get there first "real" review, they are usually devastated. Most often they become angered at the person who told them the truth.

Bad Photography is photograpy which is unappealing. They are photographs which we have no interest in looking at or buying. They are boring, common, and plain. They have no value to anyone else other then the person who took them and the F&F which told them they were good, but the F&F almost never have any intentions of buying. Because they know they lied to the photographer. What an enigma it all causes.

 

[ryunin]

What makes for a bad song? or a bad piece of writing? Each medium has a set of more or less accepted standards that could be considered the minimum points of "quality". Violate too many of the basic minimums, and few will want to work through to the end to see if the item is worth it. In that sense, an item is bad if its "package" dissuades you from trying to understand the contents. For an image, that would be elements of focus, exposure, contrast, and subject placement that when poorly executed, immediately stop a potential viewer from engaging further with the image.

Then we have the ones that are technically very good, but do not connect emotionally. This is true for images, music, writing, etc. In each medium, the lack of connection dooms the piece to indifference.

Sincerity, as you referenced in your post, does not in itself absolve the image-maker from the responsibility to craft an image which is accessible to the viewer. That means, to me, that the obvious irritants are safely put away, and the image is presented in a way that invites the viewer's participation. Sincerity, coupled with technical proficiency, and some talent, will often manifest itself in a compelling image. Sincerity without the technical skill is desire without finess, or strength without guidance. Another way of saying it is sincere competence is much more attractive than sincere incompetence.

There is probably just one photographer who was so incomptetent technically that he became famous / some poeple including me think he despite his technical incompetence made wonderful, somehow extremely original and true photographs

Mark Power Blog » Blog Archive » Miroslav Tichý

 

[pgriz]

It seems that Miroslav Tichy used photography as a means to reach a deeper level of intimacy with his subject than they would allow him (if they knew, that is). The images themselves are sufficiently ambiguous and unfocused that the viewer can inject his/her own ideas, and together with the story/notoriety of the photographer, create a narrative that is appealing or at least intriguing to them. A photographer I know told me that he did not want to have images that were "finished" in that a viewer had no option of how to interprete the image but that of the photographer. He aimed to have sufficient ambiuity and even mystery that multiple storylines could be invented to explain the image(s). Perhaps we are seeing some of the same phenomenon here.

 

[Village Idiot]

Annie Leibowitz did a shoot for the pirelli camera where the photos turned out terribly underexposed. They were used anyways and the subtleness of the subjects actually made them something special. I wouldn't google it at work though. Pirelli calendars = tits or GTFO.