- This topic is empty.
What makes a good photograph?
-
Now theres a question. Note that it is good photograph, not great or award winning or any other superlative.
Please, good people of PI, answer that question for me in 100 words or less.
Thanks in anticipation.
John.
Send me your number and I’ll text you the answer…
Seriously though, I’m out-
unless this thread morphs into the usual general chat tangent fest,
I can’t see any benefit in trying to condense such a vast subject,
with billions of examples, and millions of processes by billions of photographers,
boiled down to such a tiny essence.Though 100 words on the perfectly boiled egg might be possible.
That wouldn’t be hard…joseph
Mick451 wrote:
“What makes a good photograph?”
One of these:
Yes, but, what about one of these?
I think “Wow thats a good photograph” will be used by different people
looking at different images.Its whatever tickles your fancy really, what I find is a good photo doesnt
really mean that every photographer will think the same.A good photographer makes the good photographs… that’s the best rule I can think of anyway.
randomway wrote:
A good photographer makes the good photographs… that’s the best rule I can think of anyway.
Or alternatively if you have a good camera you can do it as well. The more expensive, the better.
OK, seriously John there’s no formula. Colour or B&W, landscape or portrait…people have preferences. You’ve presented images from over 20 years ago of places in Wexford that I consider far more appealing than the same shot today from the same place. A puck-ugly individual in the right light can produce a good photograph but at this stage I’m only talking subject. What about the format – printed on what material – presented on projected or backlit display? Replies to images here is no reflection of a good photograph as peoples interests vary. There are theories such as composition that make it attractive. You could drive yourself potty trying to answer that one. The simple answer is – I don’t know.
Perhaps I’m wrong though.
Alan.
Apart from an F16 which could elevate any photo to iconic status, surely this question is too vague…. as JB intimated, there are so many millions of factors and getting all those factors nailed doesn’t for one shot doesn’t necessarily mean it would apply on the next.
If they reckon you got an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters you’d end up with the works of Shakespeare, how many PI members does it take to create a good photograph ?
Not that I’m comparing PI members to monkeys…
Course not…
I think there are as many good photographs as there are viewers of them.
For every critic who expects sharpness across the frame, even from a 20×24 negative,
there will be someone who appreciates the effects of a 150 year old lens, or even a plastic one,
where only the centre can be resolved.There are people for whom only portraits will do,
there are others who complain if something man made turns up in a landscape.By asking the question,
you’re asking us to list our prejudices,
and what we leave out will be as telling as what we say we like.It’s a good subject for a paragraph in general chat,
but also for a very hefty book-joseph
I guess a good subject and a nice appearance to the image is what makes a good photograph.
The definition of “good subject” and “nice appearance” will vary with each different viewer.
So what JB says about there being “as many good photographs as there are viewers of them” is true.
A good photograph is in the eye of the beholder, in other words.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
