- This topic is empty.
What actually is "a very nice photograph"
-
so what is your criteria for stunning/beautiful/nicely captured picture
,when you dont know anything about the use or pourpoise for that pic?(Don’t ever get feaver! Heavy feaver and 3 days in bed is reason this whole thing came up mi mind)
Well, I find really difficult to say anything about anyones picture, when I don’t know any “background” information of the pic. A good and well done picture for newspaper use is just something totally different than “a very nice capture as a piece of art” or any fashion photo for high class magazine. And also the huge difference between “a good art picture” and “a good piece of art that is done by using photography as an intrument” (that differenkinda is my favourite subject :twisted: )
So how you decide what is good/well done/nice capture, when you do not know any background information? Do you analyse technigue or some other visible points of picture? Or are you just using “your right for having just own opininon”, and rate picture based on those things that you find interesting on this world?
(I blame feaver for all this)
and I hope someone will tell me that Im the only one who is actually thinking anything like this. :oops:Background info on the picture is always good, but I think that before you even view the info you will already have formed an opinion on the image. It’s like any form of art, what moves one person may have the opposite effect on another. I suppose even when you apply the general rules to the image it’s still open to debate. Well that’s only my opinion… anyway get well & hope the fever clears up soon.
Wow, You may have opened a can of worms on this one.
This subject has been discussed several times before in different threads and
has at time become quite passionate.Personally I feel that a good picture is one in which you do not need to be TOLD the background.
For me a good picture should lead you in and suggest or explain the background. There are however
exceptions as always. Documentary photography should be a clear representation of an event that will complement
a news article. It should visually represent the subject. However is an instance such a recent post named “Splashing About” this image
may not have technically perfect but it lead you into to a scene of kids playing on a beach and gave you the whole story in one hit.I guess what I am trying to say is that it will be very difficult to establish one clear answer to your question. Photography as an art form is extremely subjective. What one person thinks is a stunning picture may be a mess of technical imperfections to another. Both opinions are completely valid and both
deserve consideration but I fear if you read through the posts that this subject will encourage you will eventually end up with two distinct opinions. One that values the picture for the content or emotion of the picture and one that values the technicality and depth of the picture.Happy reading. It should be very interesting oh and these are my opinions and may be very misguided or noviceesque but they are my own.
Is the Mona Lisa a “really nice painting”? Do you know the story behind it? Do you know the purpose or use of that famous image?
I rest my case. :wink:
Mona Lisa, or La Giaconda doesn’t do a lot for me, however knowing the story behind a painting / photograph can enhance the overall experience of viewing it. Normally when photographers are displaying their work they tell a story about each one wheteher the lighting was difficult, the location hidden away, the event it was taken at etc. etc. What’s a nice picture my definition of a nice picture is one that 90%-95% of people like and enjoy.
digitalfotoman wrote:
What’s a nice picture my definition of a nice picture is one that 90%-95% of people like and enjoy.
Ah, but 90%-95% of whom? Photographers? Artists? The general public. I was a member of a certain photography club once, where they had a fortnightly calendar competition which required members to submit a 7″x5″ print. All the prints were put on display that same evening and voted on by the members. The object of the exercise was to find 12 images that represented the club and the locality that could be used in a calendar. Interestingly, the top scoring images were inevitably out of focus, poorly exposed,, heavily pixelated sunsets. That’s what 90%-95% of the membership selected!
So I don’t think that’s a useful measure of what makes a “nice” picture unless of course the term “nice” is open to interpretation!
As has already been mentioned, it’s an entirely subjective opinion, although there are certain guidelines that help us determine if an image is good or not. A look into any critique thread here will illustrate the diverse range of opinion. None of them are absolutely right or absolutely wrong and there is merit in all of them, IMHO. It’s this diversity of opinion that makes critique a valuable element of this forum.
about Mona Lisa
well, we kinda actually know quite a lot of information behind it. Like time and era when it was made, the style that it represents, why it was made, was was the porpouse of it (originally, it is a portrai of a lady), whitch tehbique is used on it etc…
and it is defenently the most know picture of its style and era, but not especially to best one. Most of the glory around it is just based ,after all, on few individual opinions that it is “the most wonderful picture”… like a snowball effect. (ones strong opinion takes weaker mindeds opinions with and so on…)and Da Vinci?s scethings are so much more interesting (with all information he put on them)
The most popular hit image on my site is one that I consider to be the worst.
I would never even of dream of posting it here because I already know what the comments will
read. However people keep clicking. Some have even purchased it.There is no accounting for taste.
SusieS wrote:
about Mona Lisa
well, we kinda actually know quite a lot of information behind it. Like time and era when it was made, the style that it represents, why it was made, was was the porpouse of it (originally, it is a portrai of a lady), whitch tehbique is used on it etc…
and it is defenently the most know picture of its style and era, but not especially to best one. Most of the glory around it is just based ,after all, on few individual opinions that it is “the most wonderful picture”… like a snowball effect. (ones strong opinion takes weaker mindeds opinions with and so on…)and Da Vinci?s scethings are so much more interesting (with all information he put on them)
OK, so maybe the Mona Lisa was a bad example because we do know so much about it. And maybe it’s because we know so much about the great artists that we unquestionably consider their work as masterpieces. But how many of us truthfully know the stories behind the works of art created by Van Gogh, Degas, Monet, Picasso to name but a few? Is it the story behind their images that make them great pieces or do they stand on their own. I can’t say I know too much about any of the great artists but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying their work. Likewise with so many of the great classical pieces of music. It’s not necessary to know the background information to appreciate it.
byrne5012 wrote:
The most popular hit image on my site is one that I consider to be the worst.
I would never even of dream of posting it here because I already know what the comments will
read. However people keep clicking. Some have even purchased it.There is no accounting for taste.
Go on, you know you want to show us! If anything, it would reinforce what you and I already accept, that there is no accounting for taste! :(
thorsten
I kinda agree with you
although I quite often like to hear or read about the background to a piece of work
on the music point, most classical music actually has a raft of information with it, be it in the programme at a concert or the sleeve notes of a recording. Far more information than with any pop music.
I’m reminded of my Leaving Cert English classes, where every novel and piece of poetry and prose had to be analysed to bits. The more we analysed it, the less I enjoyed it :(
hmmm…
but there is common thing that in art, literature, plays, movies, music etc.
its GENRE. Every single play, song, picture, book is kinda catecorized (or put in some “style” section after something ore someone that inpired creater).
And mostly if something “art” is totally unidentified without any information or even a hint of witch “genre” it will feel strange. Somehow is some natural need to put everyting in some catecore. (maybe to make more sense to this worl)and if you see a photo up just as “a photo”,no other explanation, how should you know the way to concider that.
put if the same photo is shown a pressfoto or clamour b&w photo, wildlifephoto for a magazine, does that make it any easier to kinda compare that piece with other similar images and help good or not judging.(sorry my so unclear english explanation)
Thorsten wrote:
Go on, you know you want to show us! If anything, it would reinforce what you and I already accept, that there is no accounting for taste! :(
Eh no thanks – only proper posts from now on.
SusieS wrote:
about Mona Lisa
But how many of us truthfully know the stories behind the works of art created by Van Gogh, Degas, Monet, Picasso to name but a few? Is it the story behind their images that make them great pieces or do they stand on their own.First of all I think the paintings of these artists stand on their own as enjoyable images. You don’t need to know the background to find them visually stimulating.
So what makes them a ‘great’?
Painting, and particularly painting in the eara of photography, is about comunication. At the simplest level the painter is inviting you to enjoy a nice image. Every one has an innate assetic that allows them to enjoy an image just for what it is. Then they may intend for the painting to tell a story. You can apply your own circumstace to draw a meaning from a painting or, if you’ve have some knowlage of the artist and the hostory of the painting, you can attempt to decern the original intended message (personally I don’t get much enjoyment from stairing at a crossword puzzel but there we go). Equally the painter may be trying to make comunicate emotionally. Their is an attempt to stir emotion in the viewer. Again that’s down to your own ability to empathise with what your viewing. Or the painter may be trying to express their own emotions, and knowing about the painter offers a shortcut to understanding the emotion they put into the image.
But what makes them a ‘master peice’? What earns them their reputation, you might say.
Originality. For an old painting who’se style has been copied and bettered many times you prety much have to know the history, and in many cases have an apreciation for the techneque applied, and be able to put your self in the position of the original viewers to really feel the full power certain painting have.
Take Suprematist images. Now they may not be to your taist but they are visually stimulating images (well OK, the fact that they’re visually stimulating and yet extreemly elemental is the whole point I guess). Given the very limited vocabulary/agenda of Suprematism they ran out of original imagery very quickly and the style of the originals has been copied very closely a thousand, a million, times since. These days the original is ‘just a circle and a couple of lines’; as by extendtion a Van Gogh is ‘just a picture of a field’. What gives the original it’s power — intelectual power I suppose — is the impact it had at the time it was created.
…
I think that all that applies too photorgraphy as well.
Great photos, of any type, are visually stimulating in their won right, tell a story and comunicate emotion. When a photographer starts to tell you how difficult a shot was, as well as the pure geekism, they’re trying to give an appreciation of it’s origninality.
PS If trashy novels are to beleived. The Mona Lisa is the greatest master peice in the world because Da Vinci said it was. Sounds as good a reason as any I suppose. It’s all about good sales and marketing it seems.
…
Bit pretetous for a first post that eh.
Hi my names Richard and I’m an enthusiastic amature
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
