[Spodeworld]

According to Joel Sartore of Nat Geo, a good photo needs:
1. Good light
2. Good composition and an
3. Interesting subject

[Schraubstock]

1) All the above = 20%
2) Luck and being in the right place at the right time = 80%


And don't forget, champions make their own luck.

[TwoUptons]

Composition, exposure, and focus - and none of those is simple.

A friend once defined a master as someone whose best photographs were no longer accidental...

-Eric

[BigMackCam]

A good studio portrait for example must be sharp

By that measurement, do you discount soft focus when used effectively?

[FozzFoster]

Story-telling is by far the most important thing in my opinion, none of those on the list matter at all unless the photo-viewer receives the story as intended.

[leekil]

My opinion as a starter:
Choice of subject and its aesthetics itself - 51%
Framing, perspective, the right moment - 25%
Quality of existing natural light - 15%
Camera gear with all features it gives to do the right capture - 3%
Lens gear (compared only to other lenses of same focal length and aperture) - 2%
Software image manipulation ("postprocessing") - 2%
Artifical supporting light gear (flash etc) - 1%
"Image quality" : Technical aspects of the final "raw" image (pixel peeing sharpness, dynamic range, noise etc) - 1%

I would say your top 3 are also my top 3, though in terms of the light, artificial light could be valid as well. Many portraits use artificial light. And the technical qualities of the camera, most importantly in its ability to render the subject, and the aforementioned light, can add to the photo overall, but you can still have a very good photo without excellent technical capabilities of the image quality. In some cases, non-excellent technical qualities are *key* to making that particular image -- like moody "toy camera" images, or the effects you get from grain or noise contributing to the impression of the photo.

---------- Post added 09-07-18 at 10:59 PM ----------

Story-telling is by far the most important thing in my opinion, none of those on the list matter at all unless the photo-viewer receives the story as intended.

Paradoxically, I think "story-telling" is important, but also I don't believe that a single image without any additional context can tell a story. A single image can imply a story, or more accurately, a multitude of stories; but that ambiguity is very much key to having a great standalone photo, or a photo that widely affects people emotionally, without any additional outside information.

[BarryE]

A sharp concept. You will never get a great photo out of a fuzzy concept.

The ICM supporters may disagree ...

---------- Post added 09-08-18 at 08:34 AM ----------

Story-telling is by far the most important thing in my opinion, none of those on the list matter at all unless the photo-viewer receives the story as intended.

I agree. A good narrative is important ...

[clackers]

Paradoxically, I think "story-telling" is important, but also I don't believe that a single image without any additional context can tell a story. A single image can imply a story, or more accurately, a multitude of stories; but that ambiguity is very much key to having a great standalone photo, or a photo that widely affects people emotionally, without any additional outside information.

I'm with you, Leekil.

'Story' is the most overused expression by YouTube photography experts, and I'm not sure they actually understand the term.

It would have to suggest narrative in some way … scene opening, action then resolution.

This is done plenty of times in a series of images as would be done in covering an event like a wedding or in news, but rarely does that apply in a single picture.

Genuine 'story' photography is probably what I enjoy most, but see on the Internet least.

Here's the most valuable photograph of all time … I can't see the 'story' here.

Rhein II - Wikipedia

IMHO, photos are great through concept and execution (Rhein II is almost a digital Rothko painting), and they certainly include 'story' ones like Cindy Sherman's invented melodramas. The gearhead's usual tickboxes of high resolution or postprocessing or whatever which would rule out Robert Capa and Dorothea Lange don't have any appeal to me, I'm afraid.

[swanlefitte]

Norman Rockwell could definitely tell a story with a single picture. I suppose you could say half the story is in the collective unconscious of the audience but it's there.
Take Homecoming Marine.
Homecoming marine - Google Search
A young man goes to war and returns home victorious happy to be back to ordinary life while the rest take in the excitement that exists beyond.
The title, the flag, the uniform, the setting, their postures, where they look, and the hands. Also the youngest is most excited, the oldest most concerned.
I love this guys work.
A simpler one is Runaway. Without having the knapsack it wouldn't be that strong because the story is missing.

[clackers]

Norman Rockwell could definitely tell a story with a single picture. I suppose you could say half the story is in the collective unconscious of the audience but it's there.
Take Homecoming Marine.

I actually think that one is literally a picture of someone telling a story, it's not a story picture.

Others of his are much better examples, where an incident has happened and we're now looking at the ramifications.

The sense of being part of a start, a middle and an ending is a 'story'.

In any case,
https://petapixel.com/2016/06/27/6-tips-telling-stories-photos/

[Rondec]

I do think it starts with a subject, but light is every bit as important. You need some light --whether or artificial or natural -- to take a photo. A black cat stealing diamonds in a cave may be an interesting subject, but until you bring some light to bear on it, no one will actually enjoy your photo.

For some reason or other people in the discussion here seem to be gravitating towards journalistic images. I suppose if you are capturing a bit of history -- a war scene or something like that -- perhaps the rules are a bit different, but I do think that for many other images sharpness and composition are quite a bit more important.

[clackers]

I've got a beautiful hardcover Rockwell book … this one of his I'd have no problem calling a story picture, it's actually named 'After the prom'"



As I said, I really enjoy what I reckon are genuine story photos, like Holly Andres' 'Homecoming' series. And of course it has everything Rondec mentioned, the sharpness, the lighting, the composition, everything in support of the idea:

[Nass]

Agree with top 3, though I think artificial light support & pp do also matter.

Bottom line a great image is also made, not always the best out of what's already there.

Eq matters in terms of convenience rather than miniscule pixel peeping attributes for me more than anything.

[ffking]

I'm probably more of a fan of Ansel Adams' words than his photographs - which isn't to say I don't like is photographs.

“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.”

“A great photograph is a full expression of what one feels about what is being photographed in the deepest sense, and is, thereby, a true expression of what one feels about life in its entirety.”

“A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words.”


Adams is surely right: when I look at the photographs I really admire, they are made, not taken - they have the photographer's fingerprints all over them (no jokes please). So a great photograph is one made by somebody who is deliberate in what they are doing and has the technical skill and imagination to produce what they intend to produce - and has something interesting to say - a bit like any great art, really.

Oh, and:

“I am sure the next step will be the electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it. I trust that the creative eye will continue to function, whatever technological innovations may develop.”

[swanlefitte]

As I said, I really enjoy what I reckon are genuine story photos, like Holly Andres' 'Homecoming' series:

I enjoy them more than abstract but both have a place. I doubt there's much argument for Kandinsky or Pollock, or Mondrian having story.
Guess there are many ways to penetrate our souls. I suppose the original question could be put philosophically as what visual relationships on a 2d surface can most deeply impact our being, or something like that.