[bm75]

The word "great" is a confusing word .... If "great" means the "wow" effect , this thing is going to happen very seldom. And this depends upon personal experiences and taste. But if I see a photo and immediately feel my heart starting to pump faster, my mind completely surfing that image , my senses sharing what's depicted in the image, yes definetly that is a great picture. I can't define it in better words than "juice of life" (being the word life comprehensive of all sorts of form of life from wilderness to human being).
Otherwise "great" means "consistent" and for sure I see much more consistent images than "great" or "wow" images. Those picture (unfortunately not mine pictures ) are technically good to exquisite and they're for sure interesting,
nontheless my pleasure is the act of scouting places and times to photograph, trying to making better pictures and enjoing my trials and errors.

---

Last edited by bm75; 08-23-2018 at 02:07 PM.

[kiwi_jono]

Absolutely depends on how you measure success!

If you go by Flickr favourites & views for example, a successful photograph is one that:
* Has over the top punchy colours or HDR effects
* Contains cute animals
* Is in a huge number of groups
* Has photographer who spends a lot of time flickr networking

[Fenwoodian]

.
For me, I use "the test of time" for both photos and tattoos.

If I still like a photo (or tattoo) in a few years, it's a good one. If I bore of it in short order it's a bad one.

My grandfather had a tattoo of a naked lady on his forearm. While I'm sure he loved it when he was in his 20's, I kind of think he grew to hate it in later life.

I've only got a couple of prints on my walls that have lasted over a few years, I guess that those are two of my favorite photo prints.

[swanlefitte]

There are many ways to define great. And to do that you have to answer some questions. Great as opposed to what? great for what? What was the point of shooting it? what is the point of looking at it? Of course these are sometimes not mutual. A simple example is what is great transportation? In water? In a mall? Most technological? One could argue an amphibious vehicle that goes 2 miles per hour is better than any car, boat, or plane, because it can be used in two mediums.

Good is easier to define. Does it do what its suppose to. If yes, its good. Now that yes is also on a continuum. A toothbrush is a good broom for sweeping floors but that is on the very weak side of good. Some would say its not good and sight many reasons why such as better options, it takes to long, etc. However that entails the further defining of what is it suppose to do? What if we use getting the corners clean? Now the same naysayers will say its really good. If function is completely defined good has a yes no 100% correlation.

Having said that I would say with photos we are defining great in terms of art. The main thing about art I will argue is not the representation of the material world but the illumination of the wonder of being. That is why it is said a photo should tell a story. A story has a theme or a moral. Something that arises out of the events that the events do not have themselves. I think this is along the lines of what Normhead is talking about on post #5.

I wanted to capture this bug for awhile. I got this one clear enough to identify it and document it was there. That makes it good. On the continuum of good that depends on further definition. The circle of confusion lies in what to use? sharpness? isolation? blah, blah, blah.


This picture does what the other picture does and more. Shows parasites and food, pretty sharp, isolation, great to put in an identification book but no context and any story is wondering about what it caught and how the mites got there. So I can define good much more accurately so I say its better than the last one on the continuum.


This picture is good with a very clear definition as described in the last photo. It also has a story. The story of a tiny bug surviving a rainstorm. The daunting problem of being pelted by giant blobs of water. There are many morals that can be derived from this picture. You think you got problems? Lets put trouble in perspective. One must navigate through life. To me this makes it a great picture in the sense of art.
. Also the elements all lend themselves to this possibility of themes.


I have many photos that don't make it to the first example, yet many somewhere between the first and second example and hardly any that make it to the last example.

A whole lot more can be said but this is the core of my thinking from my experience.

[clackers]

While I agree with you, a picture might speak for itself to you, but not to me, or vice-versa, and we're back to not being able to find any consensus on what makes a picture good or bad...

Is this really a case of "what is a treasure for one, might be garbage for the other" as we say in Brazil where I come from? Is it always just completely subjective?

I genuinely think there are good photos and bad ones, CR, just like a good steak and a bad one, a good movie and a bad one, a good novel and a bad one. Denial of that doesn't make sense to me.

However, I also think that an uneducated person won't see what a veteran of the field does, and I accept that experts bring their own weightings of what's good to the table and disagree with each other.

But that doesn't stop competitions being held, nor should it.

You might have a layman's award that favours populist mainstream content (the Pentax Forums contests are like this, or talent nights where the applause of the crowd decides), or you might have a panel of credible judges who better tolerate or even appreciate experimentalism (the Rotten Tomatoes critics score). You can average out their particular biases by having as large number of them as practical, and in gymnastic performances et al you discard the lowest and highest scores, because they are opinions that are so particular they should be treated as outliers.

And in the case of a commercial client, like the bride of a wedding or the owner of a house for a sale, they might be an outlier, and the pictures have to be made to satisfy that one judge, because they're paying for the day, no matter what the photographer thinks of their ideas.

Above and beyond the aesthetics, I always admire the effort that's gone into a photo. That's one shooter feeling for another.

If one picture is somebody just pointing a Takumar at a park bench or a flower, and the other is a landscape by Rondec, a portrait by LeRolls, or a bird pic by Normhead, there's no question which I favour. I know there's not just talent, but dedication and hard work to get the shot and postprocess. Norm has been offhand about not being bothered, but he's got his share of outstanding photos that have come from sitting in a freezing blind in Canada!

[clackers]

BTW, rather than dwell on 'Bad Pictures', I have two examples of what I reckon are great and they couldn't be more different.

We have a new forum member named Yuri who seems to take pride out of taking pictures with older, cheaper gear, and sure, wonderful art can result.

David LaChappelle's cover is a high-tech composite that invokes Middle Age religious iconography and involved prop makers and digital artists. Larry Clark's Tulsa series was both low tech and low technique, but the effort involved getting to know the people over a long enough time meant they put up with him to the point they could use drugs or have sex in his presence.

[swanlefitte]

Going on Clarke's comments.
I think Raging Bull is one of the greatest movies ever made and dislike it. I think Catcher In The Rye is one of the greatest novels ever written and I deplore it. The themes don't resonate in me. Both are wonderful story, wonderfully done and I don't care. I don't feel a relevance to me and it is there but I am anesthetized to it.
Henry Rollins talks about the band Slayer. They are not his thing musically but he loves them in the abstract.
The movie Dead Poets Society is all about this. Carpe Dieum.

[clackers]

.
For me, I use "the test of time" for both photos and tattoos.

(Laughs)

I *so* regret the butterfly I have on my lower back.

[swanlefitte]

Read about Greg Heisler a perfectionist. Read David Hobby's Strobist "On Assignment", he goes through getting a picture, reevaluating and making it better. He gives concrete examples of what can distinguish a photo from many.

[clackers]

Read about Greg Heisler a perfectionist.

Wonderful photographer, will be remembered as one of the all-time greats.

[pxt]

Yeah but read which article? He contradicts himself a lot...

Also, he thinks his own pictures are the greatest... but a lot of people just make fun of the amount of saturation he puts on them.

First I think about linked Camera doesn't matter and how get the best photo.

Ken Rockwell is worth time because his point of view in short photograph not used equipment matters and think about composition, lights and clean of photo.

Sometimes he tells simple and usefull advice like don't afraid auto mode. I switch ISO to auto and I get more sharp photos indoors.

I like taking photos not debating about them.

Saturation on photos if it add pleasure for viewer, why not? All picture from film era to now was retuche in darkrooms. How long use chemicals and now how much adjust curves is sign of times.

In short best photos add something good to your life. Pornography, agression, pain etc. photos devastating viewer taste. Make them inpassive on respect of beautiful of world. From feeling and happy person create emotionless and sad people. It is why some critique from Duschamp toilet times are excited when they see WC or modern art scam.

Technique of making photos is only half. The most important is what beautiful you can say by your work. If you can't say something good about world your photos is waste of viewer time and it can't be the best photos ever.

[PizzaDon]

Commercially speaking it's the one that sells, personally speaking it's the ones that make me go wow.

[dsmithhfx]

The prevailing assumption, mistaken in my view, is that photography may only be judged as an artistic endeavor. But photography is many other things, and there is no conscious artistic intention behind the vast majority of photographs. This does not mean they are "bad", or that 'artistic' photography exists on a higher plane.

[clackers]

The prevailing assumption, mistaken in my view, is that photography may only be judged as an artistic endeavor. But photography is many other things, and there is no conscious artistic intention behind the vast majority of photographs. This does not mean they are "bad", or that 'artistic' photography exists on a higher plane.

I'd love you to point to examples of non artistic photos that are on a higher plane than the Heisler, Clark and LaChappelle pictures you've just seen, DS.

To me, there's no way that you planning out a concept and honouring it with subject, background and perspective choice isn't more artistic than other purposes of photography, like a medical X ray, or taking pictures of items for insurance documentation, or a selfie to show you were at the ball game.

To use an example from just the other day from a forum member asking about taking pictures at a family occasion, it's not just snapping away the grandchild and then turning to its mother, it's asking the mother to lift the child out of the cot and to fill the frame with them both looking at each other before pressing the shutter release, capturing the connection.

That takes it to a higher plane, if you don't think that's better, I don't know what to say!

[johnmflores]

To me, there's no way that you planning out a concept and honouring it with subject, background and perspective choice isn't more artistic than other purposes of photography, like a medical X ray, or taking pictures of items for insurance documentation, or a selfie to show you were at the ball game.