Who's to say what is and isn't a "good" photo anyway!

[sarah_19_nz]

Sometimes I get frustrated by photo critiques that pick a decent image to pieces because it "crops too close" or "doesn't follow the rule of thirds", or the "lighting isn't PERFECT." Some photos that win awards are in my opinion AWFUL! It is all really a matter of opinion isn't it?

I get it though... great composition and 'all that jazz' certainly counts for something BUT for example looking through these photos 2013 National Award Programme Winners Announced SOME of them I think are 'just photos' snapshots even so WHY did they deserve 1st prize awards? Some I could see being posted here in the critique corner and being hammered because the black and white is "too muddy" or the "focus is a bit soft" or "it's a shame you cropped the bottom of the birds cages off"

Just wanted to start some chit chat

 

[sarah_19_nz]

Oh and if we are so concerned about getting exposure correct then why do all these fancy portrait photographers BLOW the highlights and add milky hazes!?!!? (I actually love this look personally! hahah) BUT you know... I took a photo of my daughter the other day and I totally screwed up by not changing my settings back from the day before resulting in a COMPLETELY overexposed image with CRUD LOADS of blown highlights but it was such a pretty picture of her face I thought to myself though...well hey! the fancy smancy photogs do this on PURPOSE ALL THE TIME...so its a GREAT photo! Award winning even!

 

[Derrel]

There are different stages of photographic skill, and there are also different "levels" of appreciation of photographs.

Six Stages of a Photograhers Journey

To a beginner, just making a sharp, clear, and well-exposed shot is a goal, and when the goal is achieved, they are happy. That is a Stage One photographer's goal-- just making a "recognizable" image...of "something".

By Stage Five, the photographer's skill and technique are both quite elevated, and their images usually have NO technical flaws. At Stage Six, the images display extremely high levels of artistry, and the images represent the epitome of a photographer's career. These are the career-defining images of a photographer's career.

A lot of these big, broad, world-wide contests have images from stage 3,4, and sometimes 5 work. I looked at the images in your link; some of that stuff is exceptional. Much of it is merely stock-photo quality. Buuuut....it's a contest...a lot of the images come from people who enter photo contests, and some of the pictures look like "contest pictures", designed to please "the masses".

We have Reality TV nowadays....and we also have Broadway plays... and opera...and symphonies...Macdonald's, and 5-star dining....

 

[peter27]

It is all really a matter of opinion isn't it?

Indeed it is, but what really matters is whose opinion it is. The idea of opinion forming in the arts is a very complicated issue. If you or I think that a photo is little more than a snap we might put in our family albums but an expert says that it is a work worthy of attention, then the expert opinion carries far more weight. Once enough experts agree, general opinion is swayed into following these people's thoughts.


What makes someone an expert is sometimes clear but often not quite so. However, they mostly have at least one thing in common: influence. They are in a position to voice their opinions and people listen when they speak. I am not in this position and I could talk untill I was blue in the face and nobody would hear a single word I said. Does this make my opinion any less valid? No, but nevertheless my opinion means nothing to anyone except me and perhaps a few people who know me and respect my view about things.

 

[DGMPhotography]

This thread is oozing with intelligent thought - I love it! I also think beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, and something that looks totally terrible could be a masterpiece to someone else. People see art differently, so I think it's important to experiment!

 

[sarah_19_nz]

Derrel I love the 6 stages of a photographer, I am in Stage 3 I believe! Interesting!

 

[480sparky]

I thought it was more like this:

 

[jakeg1999]

I too have really struggled with why a lot of folks feel they need to critique everything. I think it can be a great tool of course, but in the correct thread and when solicitited. I always find it interesting when someone post a photo that they enjoy in a general thread looking to simply share their work and the first few replies hammer down on details that would make the photo better. Makes me wonder if painters and other artists do the same things to one another. Any way, I just find it kind of silly sometimes.

Jake

 

[pisto1981]

I agree with this thread and i've held back on posting what i think to be my best pics because i feel if i get too much negative c&c it will knock my confidence.

I do however also agree that without c&c how can a beginner now how to improve and what improvements are needed

 

[amolitor]

It's a bit complicated, because it IS just a matter of opinion, but there's also something to the idea of a "good" photograph or, more generally, good art.

First, there's a word for this: Intersubjectivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a good word. It applies here because when a piece of art is "good" it's because a whole bunch of subjective opinions more or less align along the "ok, it's pretty good" axis. It's not quite a popularity contest, because people don't have to even like it. The point is, usually, that the photograph or art is successful in evoking something from the viewer. The viewer gets something from the picture. It makes them think, or remember, or feel, more than they expect to when they look at a picture.

When someone trots out the "well, I mean, most people don't like most pictures, so the fact that basically only a small percentage of people like my work doesn't mean I suck, it means that I just have a small audience" routine, you know that they not only suck but they're weenies.

It's sort of a matter of opinion, it's sort of a poll of opinions, it's a shared social construct! But still, there is such a thing as a good picture. It doesn't have anything to do with exposure or focus or technical details. It has to do with the way people in society react when they see the picture.

 

[rexbobcat]

If we decided that photography is too subjective for us to be able to judge others' photos, then nobody would ever grow.

And personally, getting a good exposure is best in my opinion because it slow you to blow out the highlights in PP, or process it a different way if you want. If you low out the highlights in-camera....you're not getting them back ever...They're gone.

Generally, unless you ask for it or are dealing with a total douche, you don't get critique in the normal industry. You either get the job or you don't.

And finally, Justin Bieber is popular nowadays, but is he a good singer? That's debatable. It's the same way with most art I think. Just because a photographer is popular doesn't necessarily make them "good"

 

[Benco]

Sometimes I get frustrated by photo critiques that pick a decent image to pieces because it "crops too close" or "doesn't follow the rule of thirds", or the "lighting isn't PERFECT." Some photos that win awards are in my opinion AWFUL! It is all really a matter of opinion isn't it?

Yes it is a matter of opinion and if you ask for C&C then you are asking people for their opinion, Bland comments such as 'it's good' or 'it's bad' are of no use at all, one might as well say nothing. For critique to be of any use you need specifics such as cropping, composition, lighting and so on. All that jazz maybe but that's just part of what critique is.

 

[Compaq]

De omnibus dubitandum.

 

[Buckster]

In the end, they're just individual opinions, and that's the way you have to look at it. And the only opinion that truly counts is the client's. If you're just shooting for yourself, then YOU are the client, and if YOU like it, be happy with that, no matter what anyone else has to say about it.

You will NEVER make a photograph that EVERYONE will like, because tastes vary from person to person. With every photo you make, someone out there will or would absolutely LOVE it if they saw it, while others would suggest that you throw it away and make something good. The majority of opinions will be somewhere in between those two extremes.

There is value in the Rembrandt, the Picasso, the painting made by an elephant or gorilla, the child's first crayon drawing on the fridge or in the scrapbook - just not to everyone who sees them. The same is true for every photograph ever made, whether by an accomplished photographer with many years at it, or by the amateur photographer just starting out.

Welcome and receive all comments and criticism from all of them, but don't take them to heart. Thank them for taking the time out of their day to look at your work and give you their thoughts, whether you agree with them or not. Remember that they're just individual opinions and suggestions, no matter how they're worded, no matter if the person writing them acts snooty or snotty or knowledgeable or humble in their approach, no matter their background or education or age or ability; In the end, they're still just individual opinions about that one particular individual photo or series of photos, and even so-called "experts" will argue over the merits and details of various aspects of that which they are critiquing.

If you want to make photos that appeal to the masses more than to your own sense of what appeals to your personal tastes, then you have to learn and follow the "rules" of composition, posing, lighting, and so forth. Many will love the results, while others will describe them as boring, trite, banal, kitsch, etc.

If you want to make photos that appeal to your own sense of what appeals to your personal tastes, but those happen to be at odds with what generally appeals to the masses, it's still recommended that you learn the "rules" of composition, posing, lighting, and so forth, so that you understand what "rules" to break and when to break them in order to achieve your personal vision. The masses will probably not be impressed, but art critics may consider it avant garde, ground breaking, bold, innovative, and so forth.

The thing about these "rules" is that they're really guidelines toward what most humans find aesthetically appealing. They're not "rules" in the sense of the laws of physics; Things that cannot ever be broken. Those who are just learning these "rules" tend to see everything only from that one perspective however. So, in their minds and critiques, they think EVERYTHING should follow the rule of thirds, for example, and they haven't quite gotten to the point where they know yet when that rule not only can be broken, but probably should be broken. Keep that in mind, and use it when it seems fitting to your sensibilities, not every time someone says it in a critique.

Again, it's all just opinion, and you have to keep that in mind. You don't have to agree with all of it, or any of it. Take the gems that make sense to you and use them in future photographic endeavors as you please. Discard the suggestions that disagree with your own tastes and sensibilities just as easily. You don't have to tell the person giving the suggestions whether you agree or disagree if you don't want to. There's no sense in having an argument about it, after all, since it's just individual opinions anyway. You like it one way, they think it'd be better another - so be it. No skin off anyone's nose.

Yes, some have a LOT of experience, degrees in art and careers in photography, graphic design, and so on. They're "experts", they know all the "rules", and some are quite snooty and opinionated, as though it's NOT subjective to individual tastes at all, and they are RIGHT DAMMIT!!!

Yeah, right, Siskel, Ebert and Mr. Blackwell all rolled into one. Whatever you say...

There's no sense arguing with them or taking what they say to heart and carrying it around with you if you find it insulting. But that goes for anyone's critique, no matter how "accomplished" they say they are, no matter how big their egos, no matter how much others may seem to like or agree with them. Try to look past the snotty way they say what they're saying, look for any gems of information you can take with you, and walk away with those and the satisfaction that you're doing what you like, having fun with it, and learning more as you go, as are we all, no matter what stage we're at.

Those that think they know everything have simply stopped learning, and are generally bitter, crotchety, lonely, old turds, and that's why they come off the way they do. Just remember: That means they're already getting their reward for it: A pretty crappy day to day existence, whether they'd admit it or not.

Just toss that negativity from them aside like last week's wet newspapers, and carry on with your head high and a smile on your face like their opinions don't matter at all - because they don't - they're just opinions.

Have fun with it. Boldy submit your photos, take the gems, ignore the crap, and enjoy the learning process that will make you ever better.

 

[Buckster]

Sometimes I get frustrated by photo critiques that pick a decent image to pieces because it "crops too close" or "doesn't follow the rule of thirds", or the "lighting isn't PERFECT." Some photos that win awards are in my opinion AWFUL! It is all really a matter of opinion isn't it?

Yes it is a matter of opinion and if you ask for C&C then you are asking people for their opinion, Bland comments such as 'it's good' or 'it's bad' are of no use at all, one might as well say nothing. For critique to be of any use you need specifics such as cropping, composition, lighting and so on. All that jazz maybe but that's just part of what critique is.

I disagree. While I think detailed critiques are MORE useful, I don't think the "Hot Or Not" type of critique is useless.

Suppose we had a "Hot or Not" section where we could submit and judge individual photos as "Hot or Not" only. It's an overall judgement; Do you like it, or don't you? Simple, to the point, no fuss no muss, easy as pie to see the results. Nobody has to have a way with words, there's no snotty comments, no high praise, no egos, no long-winded diatribes leading to arguments leading off-topic and eventual locks by moderators - just an overall score that tells if the general opinion of a particular photo is positive or not.

If 98% of a thousand people judge a photo "Hot", I think that says something, all by itself. If 98% of a thousand people judge it "Not", I think that says something too. And if it's right about in the middle, I think that still says something, even if it's just in general terms.