So what makes a good photograph?
Discussion
it’s a question I constantly consider in my photography, and I am still to be totally satified with an answer
Is it a dramatic moment in time, that was simply captured by a snap of the shutter while hand holding the camera, lucky timing, lucky place?
Or is it an exotic location no one has seen before causing people to “like” it, just because of the unseen landscape?
Or is it a technically perfect photo that a photographer has put effort into, even if the average joe just ignores it as not dramatic and over saturated to second glance it ?
Or finally, is it simply the size you see it?
If you’ve ever been to a Pete Lik or a national geographic shop/gallery it’s amazing how fascinating a rather mundane photo suddenly becomes as you cast your eye over every piece of real estate, compared to a glance at it on hand held media, or even a 10X 8 print
Personarlly, I’m never satisfied with any of my photos that just captured something, I always strive to do something a bit different to what the eye sees, but then, I never like my own work either
Thoughts on what you think makes a good photo (and by good I mean those that cause you stop and be very envious about the photographer) ?
Is it a dramatic moment in time, that was simply captured by a snap of the shutter while hand holding the camera, lucky timing, lucky place?
Or is it an exotic location no one has seen before causing people to “like” it, just because of the unseen landscape?
Or is it a technically perfect photo that a photographer has put effort into, even if the average joe just ignores it as not dramatic and over saturated to second glance it ?
Or finally, is it simply the size you see it?
If you’ve ever been to a Pete Lik or a national geographic shop/gallery it’s amazing how fascinating a rather mundane photo suddenly becomes as you cast your eye over every piece of real estate, compared to a glance at it on hand held media, or even a 10X 8 print
Personarlly, I’m never satisfied with any of my photos that just captured something, I always strive to do something a bit different to what the eye sees, but then, I never like my own work either
Thoughts on what you think makes a good photo (and by good I mean those that cause you stop and be very envious about the photographer) ?
One thing I've noticed about the vast majority of the pictures I see posted on this thread is that they are of existing scenes. In other words, the photographer put his camera in the correct position at the correct time to capture what someone else would have got if they had put the same camera in the same place at the same time.
What I don't see in a situation like that is any particular creativity on the part of the photographer, they're not creating the picture, they're just taking it.
What I don't see in a situation like that is any particular creativity on the part of the photographer, they're not creating the picture, they're just taking it.
Caveat for my answer is that I'm not a photographer, I'm amateur in the sense of I do photography for the love of the form.
When I started being serious about it about 12 months ago when I got a 35mm camera, I decided that photos I take were personal. There'll be people reading this who have lost loved ones etc and when they think about it they don't really have that many momentos about the person. Not so much photos of the person themselves, but of the period in that persons life where you're not even in. So I decided if I have children in the future it'd be good for them to see what I was getting up to in the years when they weren't even an itch in my boxer shorts. So when I take photos, I am always in that mindset. I want to take a photo to document a time where I am and what I'm doing. I then write it down to correspond with the photograph.
But even then, I have thought about what makes a good photo. I was lucky to be working for a company who had an inhouse photographer and she was amazing. A lovely person and a proper free spirit/creative type. And I would go up to her studio to ask questions about work we were doing, but then she'd show me photos she had taken outside of work and they were brilliant. Whenever I take a photo I sort of think of her and whether I'm doing it as good or at least near how she would do it.
However, with those two things considered, ultimately for me the question is personal. If I am there in the moment, where the sun hit something in a specific way or the clouds look a bit angry today, I look at the scene and ask if I like it. Does it make me anything? Do I go "Bloody hell that'd look good on the landing in the house" or "That would look great as a desktop background on my computer"? If I do, I take it, because I genuinely think if you like the photograph then it'll be good. Might not be universally good, but then sure what is?
For the record though, when I compare the photos I take with my digital camera before I bought a film camera to ones I take now, I do genuinely believe that using a film camera has made me think more about the shot before comitting to it. So on my honeymoon in America the wife forced me to bring my digital camera as well as my film camera, and I was often walking around the place with both hung around my neck. I was shooting most with the digital camera first, but then thinking it looked crap (as in the composition). So I started to look through the film camera first, asking "Do I want to use this one exposure on this subject?". And, to be honest, when I look at the photos I took with the digital camera I think they look great, and so much better than what they could've been composition wise if I hadn't had considered the film camera first.
When I started being serious about it about 12 months ago when I got a 35mm camera, I decided that photos I take were personal. There'll be people reading this who have lost loved ones etc and when they think about it they don't really have that many momentos about the person. Not so much photos of the person themselves, but of the period in that persons life where you're not even in. So I decided if I have children in the future it'd be good for them to see what I was getting up to in the years when they weren't even an itch in my boxer shorts. So when I take photos, I am always in that mindset. I want to take a photo to document a time where I am and what I'm doing. I then write it down to correspond with the photograph.
But even then, I have thought about what makes a good photo. I was lucky to be working for a company who had an inhouse photographer and she was amazing. A lovely person and a proper free spirit/creative type. And I would go up to her studio to ask questions about work we were doing, but then she'd show me photos she had taken outside of work and they were brilliant. Whenever I take a photo I sort of think of her and whether I'm doing it as good or at least near how she would do it.
However, with those two things considered, ultimately for me the question is personal. If I am there in the moment, where the sun hit something in a specific way or the clouds look a bit angry today, I look at the scene and ask if I like it. Does it make me anything? Do I go "Bloody hell that'd look good on the landing in the house" or "That would look great as a desktop background on my computer"? If I do, I take it, because I genuinely think if you like the photograph then it'll be good. Might not be universally good, but then sure what is?
For the record though, when I compare the photos I take with my digital camera before I bought a film camera to ones I take now, I do genuinely believe that using a film camera has made me think more about the shot before comitting to it. So on my honeymoon in America the wife forced me to bring my digital camera as well as my film camera, and I was often walking around the place with both hung around my neck. I was shooting most with the digital camera first, but then thinking it looked crap (as in the composition). So I started to look through the film camera first, asking "Do I want to use this one exposure on this subject?". And, to be honest, when I look at the photos I took with the digital camera I think they look great, and so much better than what they could've been composition wise if I hadn't had considered the film camera first.
singlecoil said:
One thing I've noticed about the vast majority of the pictures I see posted on this thread is that they are of existing scenes. In other words, the photographer put his camera in the correct position at the correct time to capture what someone else would have got if they had put the same camera in the same place at the same time.
What I don't see in a situation like that is any particular creativity on the part of the photographer, they're not creating the picture, they're just taking it.
I'm not a landscape photographer, in fact since I stopped doing weddings I hardly take my gear out, but I think that's a harsh assessment What I don't see in a situation like that is any particular creativity on the part of the photographer, they're not creating the picture, they're just taking it.
The creativity is knowing where to put the camera, and when.
It's the same as paying a plumber. It's £1 for doing the fix and £100 for know how to fix it
There's many answers depending on many things.
A lot of people harp on about technical excellence yet some of the most iconic photos ever taken were technically crap (think of that photo of the naked girl running from the napalm attack in Vietnam). But they tell a story in a single image and this can be exceptionally powerful - that napalm photo is attributed to foreshortening the Vietnam war. But present technically inept photos to the bride and groom and you'll not get paid,
Creativity is entirely subjective. But something that isn't creative is unlikely to end up on someones living room wall.
Light is seen differently by different people.
Composition rules (the rule of thirds) seems to have been retained until recently. There's a trend (mainly emerging from cinematography) that places the primary subjects in very odd places in the frame; i.e. at the far bottom right of an otherwise empty frame (if ever you've watched Mr Robot, you'll know what I mean). It shouldn't work....but kind of does.
Personally, I like to see images that are different to the norm.
A lot of people harp on about technical excellence yet some of the most iconic photos ever taken were technically crap (think of that photo of the naked girl running from the napalm attack in Vietnam). But they tell a story in a single image and this can be exceptionally powerful - that napalm photo is attributed to foreshortening the Vietnam war. But present technically inept photos to the bride and groom and you'll not get paid,
Creativity is entirely subjective. But something that isn't creative is unlikely to end up on someones living room wall.
Light is seen differently by different people.
Composition rules (the rule of thirds) seems to have been retained until recently. There's a trend (mainly emerging from cinematography) that places the primary subjects in very odd places in the frame; i.e. at the far bottom right of an otherwise empty frame (if ever you've watched Mr Robot, you'll know what I mean). It shouldn't work....but kind of does.
Personally, I like to see images that are different to the norm.
sgtBerbatov said:
For the record though, when I compare the photos I take with my digital camera before I bought a film camera to ones I take now, I do genuinely believe that using a film camera has made me think more about the shot before comitting to it. So on my honeymoon in America the wife forced me to bring my digital camera as well as my film camera, and I was often walking around the place with both hung around my neck. I was shooting most with the digital camera first, but then thinking it looked crap (as in the composition). So I started to look through the film camera first, asking "Do I want to use this one exposure on this subject?". And, to be honest, when I look at the photos I took with the digital camera I think they look great, and so much better than what they could've been composition wise if I hadn't had considered the film camera first.
This is a good point.I love digital photography but I do think it's made us lazy and think less about what we're taking.
My genre of choice is motor sport. I often stand at the track and listen to chaps firing off multiple shots at the highest speed their kit can muster. I rather think they'd better off shooting a 4K video and picking from that an image they like. Who on earth has the time to sift through what must but over a 1,000 shots from a day's racing? There's may be a superb shot in there but it will be pure luck rather than judgement.
keirik said:
singlecoil said:
One thing I've noticed about the vast majority of the pictures I see posted on this thread is that they are of existing scenes. In other words, the photographer put his camera in the correct position at the correct time to capture what someone else would have got if they had put the same camera in the same place at the same time.
What I don't see in a situation like that is any particular creativity on the part of the photographer, they're not creating the picture, they're just taking it.
I'm not a landscape photographer, in fact since I stopped doing weddings I hardly take my gear out, but I think that's a harsh assessment What I don't see in a situation like that is any particular creativity on the part of the photographer, they're not creating the picture, they're just taking it.
The creativity is knowing where to put the camera, and when.
It's the same as paying a plumber. It's £1 for doing the fix and £100 for know how to fix it
Contrast that, for instance, with a wedding photo where the photographer has placed and posed the subjects. That's an example of creativity. Point a camera at a mountain? Not so much.
You are showing no appreciation of landscape photography with your posts. Knowing how to compose, knowing how to use the light, and knowing how to use your equipment to best capture the image you have in mind... those are all creative aspects. You can argue against that all day, but how many landscape photos have you sold? Do you make a living from it?
Tony1963 said:
You are showing no appreciation of landscape photography with your posts. Knowing how to compose, knowing how to use the light, and knowing how to use your equipment to best capture the image you have in mind... those are all creative aspects. You can argue against that all day, but how many landscape photos have you sold? Do you make a living from it?
No, they are artistic aspects, not creative ones. singlecoil said:
Tony1963 said:
You are showing no appreciation of landscape photography with your posts. Knowing how to compose, knowing how to use the light, and knowing how to use your equipment to best capture the image you have in mind... those are all creative aspects. You can argue against that all day, but how many landscape photos have you sold? Do you make a living from it?
No, they are artistic aspects, not creative ones. If you take Canaletto, his paintings captured the scenes he looked at as they were but with a style totally unique to him. If he were alive today, he would probably be a photographer not a painter - capturing light, not painting light.
If you take Monet, his painting also captured the scenes he looked at but conveyed in way to enhance his 'perception' of what he saw. If he were alive today, he'd still be a painter but also a wizz on Photoshop.
Artistry and creativity are not mutually exclusive.
Tony1963 said:
singlecoil said:
No, they are artistic aspects, not creative ones.
A photograph is created, not arted. Granted, if someone tries to copy what others have done, then they’re not creative. Are you suggesting a landscape photographer should rearrange the scene? Move buildings?
I'm suggesting that while it's possible for a landscape photographer to be artistic I don't see how he can be creative unless we are using a different definition of the word to the generally accepted one "The use of imagination or original ideas to create something; inventiveness."
Let's go back to the wedding example, if a photographer was to take a picture of part of the ceremony and he was to use his skill and talent to find a good angle and position to shoot a scene that was happening anyway then that could certainly be artistic but in my view would not be creative because he was shooting something that would have happened anyway.
If on the other hand he imagined a scene and placed the subjects accordingly and shot that then he would be being creative (although not necessarily artistic).
singlecoil said:
Tony1963 said:
singlecoil said:
No, they are artistic aspects, not creative ones.
A photograph is created, not arted. Granted, if someone tries to copy what others have done, then they’re not creative. Are you suggesting a landscape photographer should rearrange the scene? Move buildings?
I'm suggesting that while it's possible for a landscape photographer to be artistic I don't see how he can be creative unless we are using a different definition of the word to the generally accepted one "The use of imagination or original ideas to create something; inventiveness."
Let's go back to the wedding example, if a photographer was to take a picture of part of the ceremony and he was to use his skill and talent to find a good angle and position to shoot a scene that was happening anyway then that could certainly be artistic but in my view would not be creative because he was shooting something that would have happened anyway.
If on the other hand he imagined a scene and placed the subjects accordingly and shot that then he would be being creative (although not necessarily artistic).
singlecoil said:
One thing I've noticed about the vast majority of the pictures I see posted on this thread is that they are of existing scenes. In other words, the photographer put his camera in the correct position at the correct time to capture what someone else would have got if they had put the same camera in the same place at the same time.
What I don't see in a situation like that is any particular creativity on the part of the photographer, they're not creating the picture, they're just taking it.
As a photographer I agree with this, but I don't think non-photographers would acknowledge the difference and/or care.What I don't see in a situation like that is any particular creativity on the part of the photographer, they're not creating the picture, they're just taking it.
The most successful shot in my portfolio is one that took a relatively little amount of skill or knowledge, certainly not beyond the realms of an amateur. It was taken on fairly average equipment, though I did have better access than the punters at the time. I have always maintained that most photographers could have come away with the same shot. However it's the most widely published, sold and stolen shot I have taken. Additionally I've seen lots of shots taken over the years to try and replicate it that haven't been as successful, so maybe I'm wrong.
Some of the shots in my portfolio I'm most proud of because I recognise the amount of skill, time and effort that went into making them barely sell at all. A customer buying prints only really sees the end result.
I guess it depends on why you're pressing the shutter in the first place. Most of my work falls into 3 main categories; money, experience/adventure and pride. The images I like most fall into all 3, but often money can dictate the other two!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff