| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/10/2007 11:42:33 PM · #1 |
I originally posted this in my blog HERE, but thought I would cross post it here for discussion...
I suppose this question rattles around in the head of many camera owners each time they browse their most recent set of images. When I return home from any given photo shoot, I always browse my shots and often ask myself one simple question:
Why did I bother to press the shutter release?
In the digital age, it is quite simple to fall into a common rut of using the brute-force method to achieve your goals in photography. Since we have no film and processing costs with digital images, we allow ourselves to simply overshoot any particular scene or subject in hopes of collecting a photograph that we can call great. When was the last time you went out on a photo shoot and achieved a keeper rate of over 10%?
What makes a photo great?
I suppose if we knew the answer to this question, we would never make bad photos, or at least we would never show them to anyone. Defining a great photograph is not a simple task either. All photographers have different tastes and objectives in their work. As a participant in multiple online digital photography communities, I see one objective that appears to trump all others. I want you to praise my work. This is the most difficult task to achieve. Since all photographers and other art aficionados each have their own tastes and biases, impressing a group of them is a daunting task.
When we break down an individual photograph into its primary elements, we can start to see how a photographer or a viewer formulates his impression of the image.
SUBJECT
Every photograph should have a distinct subject. As the subject in any photograph becomes obscured, abstracted, or difficult to define, the audience who will appreciate the image grows smaller. Typical subjects in photographs include a person or people, a flower bloom, a waterfall, or some other distinctly tangible object. Intangible subjects require a viewer who will be able to understand the photographer’s objective. Some simple examples of intangible subjects would include moods and emotions, color, shapes and textures, and a variety of other ideas that are not as simple as a rock or a flower. Intangible subjects can make great photos if your audience is willing to evaluate your idea in detail.
EMOTIONAL CONTENT
A great photograph will usually stir emotions in the viewer. These emotions may be good or bad, but they should help the viewer connect with the subject in some way. Images in photojournalism are often examples of photos that stir emotions. Some of the most compelling photojournalism that I have seen comes from war correspondents who travel the globe with the military. Their images are designed to stir emotion. In many cases, this type of photojournalism stirs a negative emotion or a sense of compassion for the subject, which aren’t normally considered to be good emotions. They don’t make the viewer happy, but the image content still creates a certain attraction of the viewer. Other types of images create positive emotions for a viewer. In either case, the emotional content of an image should connect the viewer with a subject or concept that would otherwise be foreign or uninteresting.
In my opinion, subject and emotional content are the two most significant elements of a great photo. The remaining concepts may or may not create additional positive impact for a viewer. In most cases, a great photo must have strength in one of these to areas. A photo with strength in both will usually be considered great regardless of other aspects of the image.
TECHNICALS
In photography, there are many technical issues involved in making a photograph. The photographer makes a lot of choices when composing a photo and choosing camera settings for a particular environment or objective. Composition usually plays a key role. Where, within the frame, should the subject or main point of interest be placed? Most photographers will begin spouting an infinite knowledge of the “Rule of Thirds” when this topic comes up, but sometimes that rule does not apply, or you may find yourself in a situation where a perfectly centered point of interest is preferred. In some cases, a strong subject and high levels of emotional content can be achieved regardless of your subject’s location within the frame. Subject placement, leading lines, and framing within the frame are all compositional elements that can be used to improve photo quality. Photographers who have studied and applied these concepts over time begin to find themselves automatically finding those compositions as second nature rather than having to think about it with each click of the shutter. Light quality also plays a rather large role in creating impressive photos. A photographer may have everything in place for a great image, but the light level could be too high, low, flat, or contrasty. Focus and depth of field also play significant roles in image quality. In some cases, everything should be in focus, and in others very little or nothing should be in focus. All of these technical issues generally tend to fall into the category of preference. There is no right or wrong way to create a photograph. The problems a photographer faces are finding an audience who appreciates his work. The technical elements of a photo are generally supportive of subject and emotional content. Technicals are not generally the subject of a great photo.
FINDING YOUR AUDIENCE
Photographers who aspire to gain acceptance in the public have a huge challenge before them. Instead of catering to his own preferences, he may be forced to take another route that will be preferred by his audience instead. It’s relatively easy to break photographers down into two categories: Artists and Commercial. The artist isn’t usually as interested in finding a large public audience. His work may be more experimental or catering to his personal tastes. Some artists do find a large public following, which can be a bonus for them. A commercial photographer’s job is to produce what his paying audience wants to see. His own artistic vision may have to take a back seat to what his audience wants.
During my time in photography, I have learned a lot from different audiences. When I’m trying to learn a particular concept of photography, other photographers can be a great sounding board for your technique. Another photographer can give you feedback that may include some alternative ideas that you haven’t considered.
Artists who are not photographers are my favorite audience, even though they are few and far between. They have a wonderful ability to look at my image and give me feedback on my subject and any emotional content with no pre-conceived notion of how the image was achieved. The technicals don’t matter to this audience. When I look at an oil painting, I can only judge the subject and emotional content of the work. I have no knowledge of what went into making it, and the creation process has no impact on me as a viewer.
Non-artists who simply appreciate art make a good audience also. This audience is unique to some degree because they connect with image content on a non-artist level. They have no background in art or art production. Their appreciation of an image comes solely from subject and other content.
The final audience is the most difficult to satisfy, especially for photographers. The interior decorator may have some of the previously mentioned qualities, but their objective is entirely different. Their selections of art never seem to be based on subject or content. They look for works that fit a color or time scheme. Next time you are in a friend’s home or office, take a look around at what might be hanging on the walls. Choose a particular piece and ask your friend why they chose that work to hang on the wall.
HAVE WE ANSWERED THE QUESTION?
Soâ€Â¦ what makes a photo great? Is it your perception or that of the viewer? Can a photographer be happy with his work even when he can’t find the support of an audience? An artist may be perfectly at peace with his work, regardless of outside influences. A commercial photographer won’t be able to put food on the table without the support of his audience. There is a middle road between the two, which seems to be quite popular also.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2007 12:43:21 AM · #2 |
You write well and your ideas are concise and well thought out. Reaching the end of the essay only to find that you fail to take all those ideas and formulate your own answer is a bit disappointing.
If I can formulate your answer based on what you wrote:
What makes a great photo?
- the photo garners praise
- the photo has a distinct subject
- the photo must have emotional content/trigger an emotional response
- the technical aspects of the photo should serve its subject
All of which I would agree with. |
|
|
|
07/11/2007 12:56:32 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You write well and your ideas are concise and well thought out. Reaching the end of the essay only to find that you fail to take all those ideas and formulate your own answer is a bit disappointing.
If I can formulate your answer based on what you wrote:
What makes a great photo?
- the photo garners praise
- the photo has a distinct subject
- the photo must have emotional content/trigger an emotional response
- the technical aspects of the photo should serve its subject
All of which I would agree with. |
My answer is in the central ideas rather than in the conclusion, if you can call it a conclusion.
Garnering praise... not really. Most people want that, but it doesn't define a great photo IMO.
Distinct subject... No. Great photos can have the other subjects, as I discussed... The audience who appreciates them is just much smaller.
Yes to the last two..
|
|
|
|
07/11/2007 01:00:50 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Why did I bother to press the shutter release? |
Yup.... Very very familiar with that particular question..... Followed by why did I bother lugging this thing around :-/.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Is it your perception or that of the viewer? Can a photographer be happy with his work even when he can’t find the support of an audience? An artist may be perfectly at peace with his work, regardless of outside influences. A commercial photographer won’t be able to put food on the table without the support of his audience. There is a middle road between the two, which seems to be quite popular also. |
- My perception, For me that is why I take pics outside of the having pics of the kids stuff.
- Yup.... Look at my DPC images.. QED :-)
- I don't think a commercial photg is much different then a lot of professions... I am a computer programmer (pick whatever title is currently in vogue, I have been most of them) and I certainly do stuff based on clients priorities that I would never do given no limits (or a small amount of common sense :-(). Just the way it is and has always been.... if you need others to fork over $ then you have to play their game. |
|
|
|
07/11/2007 01:13:11 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by robs:
[quote=jmsetzler]Just the way it is and has always been.... if you need others to fork over $ then you have to play their game. |
I think that's what separates commercial from purely artistic photography. The artist can find the $$$ but it's a lot longer road than weddings and smiling babies.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2007 01:17:41 AM · #6 |
Good article John. I've been thinking about my own photography and think lately I have not had the emotional impact to take them to the next level. Even many of my 7+ scores do not seem to resonate when looking at the voting pattern. Lots of 7s, even 8s, but dropping off rapidly to the 9s and 10s. 9s and 10s are about connection, not technicals.
It's something I'm hoping to work on in the next few months.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2007 01:19:58 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's something I'm hoping to work on in the next few months. |
Your stuff here on DPChallenge is great actually. In this environment, you definitely have to cater to the audience. It's relatively easy to understand the audience here when you look at the winning photos from any given challenge.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2007 01:48:29 AM · #8 |
there are 2 types of photo:
the first type - you look, and you say, wow great photo! you return to look at the same photo again 10 years later, and you still say, great photo!
and then we have the 2nd type - you looked, and you say, hmm... it's not bad, but when you return to look at the photo again 10 years later, you say, man, albert sure has grown up since this shot. now that, to me is the BEST type of photo to keep. |
|
|
|
07/11/2007 11:55:02 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by crayon:
there are 2 types of photo:
the first type - you look, and you say, wow great photo! you return to look at the same photo again 10 years later, and you still say, great photo!
and then we have the 2nd type - you looked, and you say, hmm... it's not bad, but when you return to look at the photo again 10 years later, you say, man, albert sure has grown up since this shot. now that, to me is the BEST type of photo to keep. |
There are more than one type of viewer as well. We train ourselves to look for different things in an image, and those things tend to change over time.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2007 11:59:09 AM · #10 |
There's one thing that always makes a photo great. Me.
:)
|
|
|
|
07/11/2007 12:42:06 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Mick:
There's one thing that always makes a photo great. Me. |
I think you mean "grate." ;-P |
|
|
|
07/11/2007 01:11:22 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
My answer is in the central ideas rather than in the conclusion, if you can call it a conclusion.
Garnering praise... not really. Most people want that, but it doesn't define a great photo IMO.
Distinct subject... No. Great photos can have the other subjects, as I discussed... The audience who appreciates them is just much smaller.
Yes to the last two.. |
I think a photo doesn't define itself as anything - it simply exists. 'Poor', 'average', 'great' - these are all attributes assigned to the photo by someone or some group of people who look at it. So I think you were correct in what you wrote (or how I interpreted it anyway) in that a 'great photo' must garner praise - either from the one person who thinks its great or the thousands of people who think its great. Quantities aside, there is an external component to the classification.
I also think there is always a distinct subject (which again is how I interpreted what you wrote) even if the subject is abstract. There has to be something that elevates the photo from being more than a random collection of photons captured at a specific moment in time.
I find myself agreeing with you more than you agree with yourself. |
|
|
|
07/11/2007 01:33:33 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I also think there is always a distinct subject (which again is how I interpreted what you wrote) even if the subject is abstract. There has to be something that elevates the photo from being more than a random collection of photons captured at a specific moment in time.
I find myself agreeing with you more than you agree with yourself. |
This is exactly right. "Distinct" is subjective too :) The variations in "distinct" lie within the tangible/intangible subject choices. A waterfall is a distinct subject. Everyone knows what it is when they see it.
This photo from my collection doesn't have a 'distinct/tangible' subject. The subject is shapes, lines, and texture.
This photo is somewhat of a mixture. One could say that it has distinct/tangible subject matter, but my objective with it was an idea as the subject.
Message edited by author 2007-07-11 13:34:13.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2007 02:05:17 PM · #14 |
I don't have much to add to the conversation except to quote something Zeuszen said in a forum thread
about a year ago, about his voting rubric. I quote here only the top of his scale, as it relates to the "greatness" of an image:
7 > an outstanding photograph fit for both study and pleasure, while allowing for minor technical shortcomings, an accomplished imitation of a mode of seeing or rendering drawn or alluding to another medium including enduring snapshots or candids of remarkable human interest
8 > same as 7, but one that stimulates awareness and taxes the senses, technically accomplished, with near-imperceptible flaws, if not entirely flawless; clearly 'inventive' photographs pointing a little known interest, direction or delight
9 > same as 8, technically without a fault, but a photo which denotes 'perceived' reality to the point of restlessness and action
10 > an enduring photo that challenges the order of gods and the world, one holding its own alongside any other.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2007 02:14:15 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by strangeghost:
I don't have much to add to the conversation except to quote something Zeuszen said in a forum thread
about a year ago, about his voting rubric. I quote here only the top of his scale, as it relates to the "greatness" of an image:
|
He's an excellent audience to have :) I have found his feedback to be very worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2007 03:16:56 PM · #16 |
| What makes a photo great? I think it's probably NOT accolades, technical/compositional perfection, commercial success, a Pulitzer Prize, or the final score at DPC that makes a photo great. What makes a photo great, to me, is the greatness of the photographer, a point of view that transcends photography, a style that's unique. |
|
|
|
07/11/2007 03:41:15 PM · #17 |
| FYI - There is an excellent three part discussion by George Bar on the Luminous-Landscape site entitled "Taking Your Photography to the Next Level" which I think will add greatly to this discussion. I think the important part is that he breaks the analysis down into the "technical " and "aesthetic" aspects of the art. |
|
|
|
07/11/2007 03:52:00 PM · #18 |
What makes a photo great?
Lizards, evidently
 
2 of my top 5 scores are photos of lizards.
;-) |
|
|
|
07/11/2007 04:06:32 PM · #19 |
The ability to shoot many more pictures with digital vs film I think is a good thing. With film, you are limited in how many shots you can get on a roll which can force you to try to get the best shot you can with each one but on the other side of that coin is that you can play it safe and not be willing to try someting just to see how it comes out. There is also the instant feedback on if what you are trying to do is working. You do not have to wait until you send in your film, wait a few days, and then see what went wrong and try to remember what you did in the first place. Your subject may no longer be available and certainly the lighting conditions will not be the same (unless you are shooting in a studio). This means you can learn and improve much more quickly with digital. Great photos were taken with film and are being taken digitally. It is simply a better tool to get the job done.
A popular photo is not necessarily a great photo. Just like a popluar movie is not necessarily a great movie. Ultimately it is personal. Does it mean anything to you? A photo can be visually stunning with great light and brilliant colors but be devoid of any emotion- like an advertisement. A technically perfect shot may have less impact than a slightly blurry, off- level, poorly exposed photo might. Or might not.
[/url] |
|
|
|
07/11/2007 04:16:55 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by d56ranger:
FYI - There is an excellent three part discussion by George Bar on the Luminous-Landscape site entitled "Taking Your Photography to the Next Level" which I think will add greatly to this discussion. I think the important part is that he breaks the analysis down into the "technical " and "aesthetic" aspects of the art. |
for the lazy
|
|
|
|
07/11/2007 04:21:20 PM · #21 |
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! |
|
|
|
07/11/2007 04:40:11 PM · #22 |
While I have no problem with the ideas and concepts in the OP's list, I get a bit of an uneasy feeling when someone tries to use a check list for what makes a great anything.
Reminds me of the scene in Dead Poets Society when they start reading the book on what makes a great poem. The stodgy old teacher even graphs the elements that can determine if a poem is great or not. Then Robin Williams reminds them that all great poetry was written for one purpose . . . to woo women.
Take it from me, that doesn't work in photography ;-)
The ability of the artist to deliver the desired message, regardless of the reception is the mark os a true artist, IMO. As for how to do that? I couldn't tell you. But, I do know this,
There is no standard formula for greatness. |
|
|
|
07/11/2007 05:04:53 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
There is no standard formula for greatness. |
I think that part is clear :)
|
|
|
|
07/11/2007 05:05:12 PM · #24 |
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What is a great photo for one person may not be for the next. The op is thought provoking which I believe was the intent - thus no conclusive answer. The answer will be different for each of us and will change over time. What I used to think was a great photo isn't the same as what I now think is a great photo. And I'm sure it will change again.
Right now for me since I'm still learning so much it changes all the time. Sometimes its because of the technicals of a shot and sometimes because of a connection I feel to a shot. There was one recently (actually its in the dichotomy challenge now) that I considered a great photo. What made it great for me was that the longer I looked at it and the longer I thought about it the more I understood and the more I understood the more I thought about it.... just one of those kind of shots for me. Then there are the ones that I think are great because I took them and put a lot of work into them. When I'm proud of what I've done because it shows me how much I've learned then I think its great for me even if I may be the only one.
The one thing that hasn't changed at any point in my life about what makes any particular shot great in my opiniion is my emotional connection to it. I have a poloroid shot of me and my grandpa in a motel six from many years ago that is horrible with the technicals but if I were able to go back to that day with the knowledge, abilities and equipment I now have then the shot that would have been taken wouldn't have the elements in it that bring back that one moment in time. I wouldn't have taken that shot in the horible lighting of the motel room with the tv in the shot but would have used some nice bushes outside or something but it wouldn't have been the same and wouldn't have brought back the same memories. Grandpa is gone but that simple little technically aweful poloroid brings him back on occasion.
So the answer for me is..... it depends. It depends on the viewer and the connection to the shot. It depends on the frame of reference of the viewer (time, knowledge, etc). All this agrees imo with the discussion in the op and that the answer to the question is never really going to be concrete. |
|
|
|
07/11/2007 06:24:19 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Sheryll:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... |
Nonsense. Beauty is aptness to purpose. |
|
