DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> What Makes a Photo Great?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 46 of 46, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/11/2007 09:30:33 PM · #26
Originally posted by formerlee:
A great photo to me is the one that captures one moment in time that has an emotional attachment to those who can identify with it, whether they are the subject of the shot or it something with which they are familiar.

It doesn't have to the best shot in the world, or the best technically. It has to stir an emotion. War photos, although not always spot on with technicals, capture an instant in time, an everlasting memorial to the event. One springs to mind, the Vietnam war and the naked child running down the road towards the photographer. Not processed for effect, not blazing colours, not as sharp as modern digital photos, but B&W and grainy and an emotional roller coaster.

Ask many people to pick their favourite photo taken over the years, and I bet it is a fuzzy old photo taken with some 110 or disc camera, but it will have a very special place to them. That is a great photo!


my sentiments regarding a truly great photo too.
 07/15/2007 08:42:08 AM · #27
I guess it's those 1000 words that the photo stands for.
 07/15/2007 01:12:08 PM · #28
Originally posted by gjumi:
I guess it's those 1000 words that the photo stands for.


I think that plays a large role in it for sure. Art's context is important in many cases.
 07/15/2007 10:28:01 PM · #29
If by context we mean something that is going on around the art piece, that is its history, the artist, and the purpose of viewing, then yes, these play a great part on the greatness of a photo.

But, I think there's more to it. I think a photo is great if it tells me a great story, despite of the artist and the historical background, and it's technical superiority, and despite of the teacher, who tells me that the photo is great. I must note that this doesn't reduce to "art is in my eyes", because after viewing a great photo, for the n-th time, I'm supposed to leave smarter, emotionally richer, maybe cleverer, but not necessarily, and able to understand the Universe and my place in it (basically, to know what's the question that has 42 as an answer :-) ). So, my eye and my mind's I should ameliorate from the experience of viewing the photo and thinking about/because of it.

Now, this doesn't reduce into numbers, in the sense that the more people's eyes get better, the greater the photo is.

I'm feeling I just pushed the question from "what's great" to "what ameliorates"... I'd better stop now, then...
 07/15/2007 10:50:46 PM · #30
What makes a photo great is simply whatever makes the viewer want to look at it again. Some of those qualities can be controlled by the photographer (color appeal, an interesting subject, compelling lighting, an unusual processing technique), some are unique to the viewer (experiences, nostalgia, personal interests or phobias) and some are just luck. All you can do is try to master the first group, make educated guesses about the second, and hope like crazy for the third. ;-)
 07/15/2007 11:00:44 PM · #31
Originally posted by gjumi:
If by context we mean something that is going on around the art piece, that is its history, the artist, and the purpose of viewing, then yes, these play a great part on the greatness of a photo.

But, I think there's more to it. I think a photo is great if it tells me a great story, despite of the artist and the historical background, and it's technical superiority, and despite of the teacher, who tells me that the photo is great. I must note that this doesn't reduce to "art is in my eyes", because after viewing a great photo, for the n-th time, I'm supposed to leave smarter, emotionally richer, maybe cleverer, but not necessarily, and able to understand the Universe and my place in it (basically, to know what's the question that has 42 as an answer :-) ). So, my eye and my mind's I should ameliorate from the experience of viewing the photo and thinking about/because of it.

Now, this doesn't reduce into numbers, in the sense that the more people's eyes get better, the greater the photo is.

I'm feeling I just pushed the question from "what's great" to "what ameliorates"... I'd better stop now, then...


as if asking, if then the world can be richer for an image... if then that image is itself enough to hold and attract qualities that can compensate for so much inundation, sham, quantity....

without a period at the end and many blanks in its writing
 07/15/2007 11:04:11 PM · #32
Originally posted by scalvert:
What makes a photo great is simply whatever makes the viewer want to look at it again. Some of those qualities can be... and some are just luck...


The muses are fickle, but "luck"? I wouldn't dismiss them with it.
 07/15/2007 11:06:02 PM · #33
What makes a photo great? Hot chicks!
 07/15/2007 11:12:05 PM · #34
As usual, the ultimate truth is derived from many sources.

Originally posted by scalvert:
What makes a photo great is simply whatever makes the viewer want to look at it again.


Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Hot chicks!


Originally posted by routerguy666:
This site really needs a Girls Kissing Girls challenge...


Message edited by author 2007-07-15 23:12:17.
 07/15/2007 11:18:29 PM · #35
Originally posted by routerguy666:
As usual, the ultimate truth is derived from many sources.


Amen!
 07/16/2007 12:32:10 AM · #36
Originally posted by scalvert:
What makes a photo great is simply whatever makes the viewer want to look at it again. Some of those qualities can be controlled by the photographer (color appeal, an interesting subject, compelling lighting, an unusual processing technique), some are unique to the viewer (experiences, nostalgia, personal interests or phobias) and some are just luck. All you can do is try to master the first group, make educated guesses about the second, and hope like crazy for the third. ;-)


WOW, you've wounded thousands of artists with only three lines!

Yes, a Photographer, with a capital P, will master the technique, but even if she doesn't, no big deal. A Photographer doesn't make guesses, but she commands the viewer, she tells him what to see, how to see, and what to do about what the viewer is seeing. And a Photographer is always prepared for luck, but she knows she'll never get it, just like Michelangelo's David never talked.

Now, as for a photographer, well, I guess it's only the cypher behind $. I guess so, thank you very much.
 07/16/2007 12:36:29 AM · #37
Originally posted by zeuszen:

as if asking, if then the world can be richer for an image... if then that image is itself enough to hold and attract qualities that can compensate for so much inundation, sham, quantity....

without a period at the end and many blanks in its writing


It's good that you don't ask, because you know that I couldn't answer. But, it's just the path we have to take and make attempts at the greatness. That's the only thing we can do, by nature.

I always wonder why made those medieval glass workers think that people will see faith coming through the long narrow windows of the cathedrals? The power of the image or the rays of light? And I still can't understand why the hell doesn't the stupid Sun stops when he sees some of the photos of Natchwey... But, maybe He knows better... Anyway, all I can offer is a difficult company through a bumpy road...
 07/16/2007 12:38:08 AM · #38
Originally posted by gjumi:
WOW, you've wounded thousands of artists with only three lines!


A great photo is not the exclusive domain of artists. As noted earlier in this thread, a blurry snapshot of a son or daughter can be someone's most prized image.
 07/16/2007 12:47:17 AM · #39
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by gjumi:
WOW, you've wounded thousands of artists with only three lines!


A great photo is not the exclusive domain of artists. As noted earlier in this thread, a blurry snapshot of a son or daughter can be someone's most prized image.


There's a difference between "a great photo" and "a great photo for me", and I think we're talking about the former. I guess noone would go to a museum or a gallery or publish a book with the blurry photos, or even sharp ones, of their kids, and say "please, convey this to the world, because they'll get emotionally elevated, smarter, or whatever a great photo is supposed to do to the soul, or whatever you call that other thing living inside ones body".

But, I might be wrong, as I was countless times.
 07/16/2007 01:07:48 AM · #40
Originally posted by gjumi:
I guess noone would go to a museum or a gallery or publish a book with the blurry photos ... and say "please, convey this to the world, because they'll get emotionally elevated, smarter, or whatever a great photo is supposed to do to the soul, or whatever you call that other thing living inside ones body".


They would if Leonard Nimmoy shot them :-D
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=620181

Message edited by author 2007-07-16 01:10:46.
 07/16/2007 01:23:55 AM · #41
Originally posted by gjumi:

But, I might be wrong, as I was countless times.


+1.
 07/16/2007 01:32:32 AM · #42
I guess another point that should come into discussion is the narrowminded viewer.

Leroy is a good example of that, or he attempts to promote that idea quite freely.

This thread isn't about specific artists and specific pieces of work. It's about generalizations. Leroy likes photos of hot women. That's a generalization. He doesn't, however, like Leonard Nimoy's hot women. He may like the women themselves, but he doesn't like the way Nimoy photographed them. That's a specific.


07/16/2007 01:53:10 AM · #43
Yeah, definitely nothing wrong with his hot chicks or his other chicks.. but ick... get some skill dude :-)
 07/19/2007 01:17:43 AM · #44
Fine Art Photography Revisited

I stumbled across some tidbits today that shed a little extra light on this subject for me...
 07/19/2007 03:46:03 AM · #45
Wondering about the potency of images, I remembered a talk of Wim Wenders, you can find it here: //www.signandsight.com/features/1098.html ... well, this doesn't answer how to make strong images, but it tries to convey the message that images have some strength, in modern times more than words...does this mean that images have killed thinking?

hmmm, here.

Message edited by author 2007-07-19 03:47:50.
 07/25/2007 12:53:12 PM · #46
I really don't like this thread go, because, I think, this, that is, the question that titles this thread, should be the crux of the matter, the reflection point before one presses the button.

Adding something small and expecting something big, I'd like to say that something that makes a photo great is human intervention, as opposed to machine intervention. I hope you understand that this is supposed to mean that a human should take the picture and decide about exposure, focus, composition, colours, the story, and stuff like these. Now, there are those conventional things that we call machines, you know, those mechanical stuff with chips and electronics and wires, which can do quite a marvellous job about exposure and focus and similar stuff. Hell, they can even add some types of filters, so that the photo would look like a painting from the XIX century. But, there are some other machines from the homo genus, that can, in addition to exposure and focusing, do a marvellous job at composition. But, what makes this machine differ from the human, and spotting the difference is very very tricky, because these machines and humans almost look the same, is that these machines don't actually tell a story. A human does.

And you, dear viewer, are supposed to understand the story of the human, if and only if you yourself are human too. You might be from a different tribe, but you're still supposed to at least know that there's something to the image in front of you.

I leave the floor now to smarter and lucid people. Thank you.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 03:52:47 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 03:52:47 PM EDT.