What makes a great photo...

[Lonnie]

This topic of what makes a good photo might be worth its own thread.

Background....

IMO, technical expertise is part of the game but vision and creativity is what separates the good from the inspiring. For a couple years, I was much more focused on learning the technical side of things and most of my friends/family thought I was a good photographer, based largely on having vibrant/sharp/contrasty shots from good equipment, some post-processing, and modest technical expertise. One of my friends is a pro, though, and looking at his stuff has really made me believe that what makes a great shot is vision and creativity - expressing a feeling, mood, or experience to someone who wasn't there.

My EXACT thoughts. When I advanced beyond basic point-and-shoot, everyone (including myself) loved my shots. But really, it was a matter of being at the right place at the right time, using the right settings (sometimes automatically), and doing some processing. Yes, they were nice shots, but didn't require much vision, much "seeing". As I've improved (I like to think!), I try to "see" differently, beyond the usual scene, to bring out a personal vision/mood. And I've also become much more selective in liking shots (either by myself or others) -- the shots I like best are the ones that have something unique, a certain perspective, angle, vision, mood, whatever. While sunrise/sunset and long-exposure waterfall/stream shots are nice, they don't really do much for me -- after a while they all look alike and don't show much unique vision (there are obviously fantastic exceptions, ones where the vision does shine through).

I've thought about this quite a bit and I'll argue that three things make a great photograph. Before I go any farther, I would like to quote Ansel Adams.

"A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words."

• Subject matter
  Composition
  Technical aspects

Subject matter could be anything but should be interesting, "evoke emotion" (the very nature of art) and "pull the viewer in". As a rule of thumb, every pic should have a "strong" focal point. It can be in the foreground, background, or both at the same time.


Composition: How the subject matter is arranged in the frame. In my mind, composition is where the real "art" of photography happens. Personally, I think the best compositions are simple ones, without busy/distracting foregrounds or backgrounds. As I said before, it's ok to have foreground and background interest, but a great photograph will make it all fit together.

There are infinite ways to compose a photograph, and some of the things I think about when composing an image are first and foremost, I think about framing the image, where the subject matter is arranged in the frame. On the most basic level, all of the compelling subject matter should be in the frame (now where it's placed in the frame is a matter of taste!) Personally, I think about balance and symmetry, knowing that sometimes an off center subject can add interest to a photo. We all know about the "rule" of thirds and it's a good guideline, just don't forget that we need to think about both vertical and horizontal composition. I change angles and try to get a "unique" perspective (personally, I love low and wide). I look for leading lines, is there something to pull me in. If landscaping, I think about the horizon line and making sure it's level and (generally) not in the middle of the frame.

Finally there are the technical aspects. I like to think of them as broken down into basic elements, focus, depth of field, lighting and exposure.

To me, and others may disagree, a good photograph should be in focus. At least the main subject matter should be. Photos can appear soft due to missing the focus point or camera movement. We all know camera movement occurs when our shutter speed is longer than our ability to hold the camera steady.

Depth of field is related focus and is how much of the photo is in focus and can be shallow or deep by intent. We all know that this is related to F-stop. Larger aperture have shallower depth of field and more of the photo is out of focus. Great for isolating a busy background. Small apertures are the reverse.

Finally a good photos should be properly exposed with, a good balance of light and dark areas, highlights are not “blown out”, and shadows should have some detail.

Lighting is more interesting. The very word photography means writing with light. Along with compostional skills, knowing and understanding how light interacts with your subject matter is what makes a great photographer. There are so many types of light; Direct Light, Back Light, Side Light, Reflected light, Indirect Light, Diffuse Light and others.

Direct light give us evenly lit subjects with lots of contrast and strong shadows. Back light can silhouette parts of a subject and highlight other parts of it. Side light (one of my favs) gives a gradation of light and shadow across the frame. Quite often this can give the sense of implied motion in the frame. Reflected, Indirect and Diffuse light are similar in that they give us evenly lit subjects with varied contrast with weak shadows (the contrast in these photos is often due to the subject matter and not the intensity of the light in the frame).

All of these things, when put together, can increase ones chances of capturing a great image. And you have to have all three to make a great image, a good subject, a good composition, and the technical and working knowledge of your equipment to make the captured image match your vision or the image in your head.

So with all of this being said, what makes a good photograph? Quite simply, it's one that moves you on some level. As I said in the other thread, that is the true purpose of art. It's like the old quote about pornography (I don't remember who said it), "I don't know what it is, but I can tell you when I see it." A good photograph is the same way. It can break the rules, if need be, if it moves you. I'll close with another Ansel Adams quote,

“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.”

That should get us going. Have at it...

[hop]

I didn't read anything past the title.

My answer = "it depends".

[smmokan]

Composition and emotional connection.

Technical elements are great and sure do help, but 95% of the viewers don't even notice.

[Chainsaw_Willie]

Composition and emotional connection.

Technical elements are great and sure do help, but 95% of the viewers don't even notice.

Hmmm... I'd have to agree. The composition is where it's at. The technical side of it comes from the composition - what is the photog trying to achieve and what technique does he use to accomplish it. A blurred, slightly out of focus, low-contrast, grainy, etc. image might be just the thing to convey the feeling in some circumstances, in others a tack-sharp, contrasty image is just the thing. Let function follow form in this case.

[Fuzz]

This...

I didn't read anything past the title.

My answer = "it depends".

...is hardly helpful for those of us trying to improve our photography. Yes, photography is subjective and personal. But some shots make us go "Wow!" and others make us shrug "Meh." Instead of just stopping there and saying "It depends", trying to understand why a certain image provokes a certain response can be helpful in developing one's own style and moving away from a spray-and-pray method.

I agree with Steve and Chainsaw -- composition is the most important element. Composition determines how we present our subject. A good composition can make an interesting subject out of the most mundane, boring thing. A bad composition can make a terrific subject uninteresting.

Technical aspects are there to support the composition (e.g. how much DoF to use). Good technical things can never make a good photo by themselves. Bad technical things can ruin an otherwise good picture, but not always. I used to get hung up on perfect exposure, but now I don't worry so much. I still try to capture it correctly in-camera, but in PP, I'm okay if I blow out the highlights or darken the shadows, as long as it matches my vision for the image.

Lastly, I personally value originality. Friends, family, and strangers compliment me on this shot and this one. Yes, they're nice, but anyone could have taken those shots, and they do. Personally, I like this shot better, since it's a departure from the standard. I'll sometimes go on Flickr and search for a popular subject (e.g. Times Square, or the Eiffel Tower). There are tons of very similar shots. The ones that really hold my attention are the ones that are different from the rest, that offer a unique take, vision, and story on the same subject. This is the aspect I've been trying to work on with my photography recently.

EDIT: For instance, a search for Eiffel Tower on Flickr tuns up tons of shots. Ones that caught my eye are this, this, this, and this.

[Lonnie]

Hmmm... I'd have to agree. The composition is where it's at. The technical side of it comes from the composition - what is the photog trying to achieve and what technique does he use to accomplish it. A blurred, slightly out of focus, low-contrast, grainy, etc. image might be just the thing to convey the feeling in some circumstances, in others a tack-sharp, contrasty image is just the thing. Let function follow form in this case.

Technical aspects are there to support the composition (e.g. how much DoF to use). Good technical things can never make a good photo by themselves. Bad technical things can ruin an otherwise good picture, but not always. I used to get hung up on perfect exposure, but now I don't worry so much. I still try to capture it correctly in-camera, but in PP, I'm okay if I blow out the highlights or darken the shadows, as long as it matches my vision for the image

Yes.....

So was it composition or technique that nailed this shot?

[hitek79]

If you spend more than 10 minutes on Flickr, you would think the only thing that makes a good landscape photograph is heavy HDR processing.

[Fuzz]

So was it composition or technique that nailed this shot?

I'd say it was vision. The vision of doing a bokeh-ball version of the Tower. The technique (aperture and focus) supported that vision.

[Lonnie]

I'd say it was vision. The vision of doing a bokeh-ball version of the Tower. The technique (aperture and focus) supported that vision.

I won't disagree that it was vision.

However, without knowledge of the technique, that vision was impossible to capture.

Now I'm not arguing for technique. I'm arguing that without the technical knowledge (be it before, during or after the shot), you can never fully implement your vision, and as a result, technical knowledge is critical to capturing a good photograph (unless your vision sucks! ).

[Fuzz]

However, without knowledge of the technique, that vision was impossible to capture.

No arguments there. My only point is one that echoes Chainsaw_Willie -- technique should follow and support the vision/composition. Without composition, the best technique won't help. I guess I might seem forceful on this point because I've seen tons of photos posted on other photo sub-forums where everything is technically perfect, but the composition/vision/subject sucks. It's a technically perfect "snapshot". That's why I stress that composition should be first and foremost, even if there are technical shortcomings.

I'm arguing that without the technical knowledge (be it before, during or after the shot), you can never fully implement your vision, and as a result, technical knowledge is critical to capturing a good photograph (unless your vision sucks! ).

I'm ambivalent on this point. I personally agree with it in terms of my own photography -- I think having the technical knowledge lets me capture my vision. But I've also seen great photography done with fully automatic cameras with little/no technical control/decisions.

[Fuzz]

If you spend more than 10 minutes on Flickr, you would think the only thing that makes a good landscape photograph is heavy HDR processing.

No doubt! I don't understand how anyone can like those overcooked, over-tonemapped HDR images. The ones that leave me most puzzled are ones where there doesn't seem to be a high dynamic range in the first place, e.g. open landscape with sun at the back, no dark shadows or anything. I am often tempted to ask, "Why couldn't this have been captured correctly in a single frame?"

[Lonnie]

But I've also seen great photography done with fully automatic cameras with little/no technical control/decisions.

No argument. But there is only so far you can go along that route (you become equipment limited).

On the flip side, I'd argue that having LESS control over the technical elements in the photograph gives one more time to focus on the composition aspect.

At some point, both become 2nd nature and one feeds into the other. It's just like skiing, seeing "the line" is one thing, having the bag of tricks to ski it in different ways is something else...

Edit: To tie it back to the other thread, lots of times I use the MPC's to test out a new technique or something I'm working on. In this one I was messing around with a new 9 stop filter (which is tricker to use than one might think (good luck seeing thru that thing)). In the patterns one, it was off camera flash work. I learned new stuff in both that I can implement in "real world" situations, so it was not a loss.

For Example from the patterns MPC;



In this pic my "task", or "vision" was to light a glass of water and drops of food coloring as to give the maximum contrast and not have any shadows, reflections, or evidence of the flash in the shot. I did it my placing the flash directly behind the glass and shooting thru a sheet of white paper. To get the detail, I used my 50mm lens and a couple of macro extension tubes. It's a fun shot, not an awesome one, but I did learn from it....

[smmokan]

If you spend more than 10 minutes on Flickr, you would think the only thing that makes a good landscape photograph is heavy HDR processing.

Or if you read Outdoor Photographer. It seems like every issue this year has had some kind of crappy HDR technique or photog as the main article. I've stopped my subscription because of it.

[Lonnie]

Or if you read Outdoor Photographer. It seems like every issue this year has had some kind of crappy HDR technique or photog as the main article. I've stopped my subscription because of it.

Ditto....

[Fuzz]

I think the difference in technical emphasis is in how to MAKE a good photo versus how to ACKNOWLEDGE a good photo.

Technical mastery can definitely help fine-tune the vision that the photographer wants to create.

But as a viewer, when I am seeing a good picture, I'm not thinking "Wow, what great aperture/focus/ISO!" I'm thinking "Wow, what great mood/colors/texture/whatever!" That's my criteria for determining whether it's a good photo to me.

I don't really care whether the photographer spent hours getting the perfect technical settings, or whether they shot in Auto mode. I care whether I connect with the image. When I see a good image on Flickr, I rarely ever check the EXIF info for the technical settings. I simply look at the image to figure out how and why the image provokes a certain response.

[::: :::]

sidebar: isn't "composition" as much a technique as lighting?

"vision" is an interesting proposal for what makes a photograph good, but it may be limiting in that the follow-through on that vision may or may not work out depending on the baggage a viewer brings to the image.

i'd argue that good photographs communicate. they offer narrative or provoke emotion. they transport the viewer by offering an experience so palpable that the viewer's personal experiences are irrelevant to enjoying or understanding the image.

that said, I enjoy many images that don't necessarily attain this ridiculously high standard. and, in those more pedestrian but technically good images, there is still much to appreciate

a base standard for a good image might be: technique should be invisible

[Chainsaw_Willie]

Lonnie's point about technique is a good one. A lot of times when I see a really cool photo that makes me go "neat!" I wonder about how it was captured. I have a lot to learn about technique still, so reading how Lonnie captured the food coloring swirls is interesting. I might not have thought about doing it that way.

Ditto on HDR being way over-used/blown. I've seen some HDRs that were really nice, they were used to capture the dynamic range your eye could see. If I'd had my tripod with me on Silver Peak last Tuesday I could have done a couple HDRs that would've been really nice. As I was looking towards the sunset my eye was able to see the foreground elements as something other than dark outlines, but unfortunately the camera can't do that in one exposure. Being able to blend some exposures would've been nice. Unfortunately, most people are way heavy-handed with it and the cartoonish results seem to appeal to lots of folks for some reason that I've never understood. Marc Adamus is one of the most notable offenders in my book. He takes some interesting, well composed photos and turns them into cartoons. I don't get it.

[Fuzz]

i'd argue that good photographs communicate. they offer narrative or provoke emotion.

That's what I meant with "vision" -- something that tells a story or provokes an emotion in the viewer.

[hop]

This......is hardly helpful for those of us trying to improve our photography. Yes, photography is subjective and personal. But some shots make us go "Wow!" and others make us shrug "Meh." Instead of just stopping there and saying "It depends", trying to understand why a certain image provokes a certain response can be helpful in developing one's own style and moving away from a spray-and-pray method.

I agree with Steve and Chainsaw -- composition is the most important element. Composition determines how we present our subject. A good composition can make an interesting subject out of the most mundane, boring thing. A bad composition can make a terrific subject uninteresting.

Technical aspects are there to support the composition (e.g. how much DoF to use). Good technical things can never make a good photo by themselves. Bad technical things can ruin an otherwise good picture, but not always. I used to get hung up on perfect exposure, but now I don't worry so much. I still try to capture it correctly in-camera, but in PP, I'm okay if I blow out the highlights or darken the shadows, as long as it matches my vision for the image.

Lastly, I personally value originality. Friends, family, and strangers compliment me on this shot and this one. Yes, they're nice, but anyone could have taken those shots, and they do. Personally, I like this shot better, since it's a departure from the standard. I'll sometimes go on Flickr and search for a popular subject (e.g. Times Square, or the Eiffel Tower). There are tons of very similar shots. The ones that really hold my attention are the ones that are different from the rest, that offer a unique take, vision, and story on the same subject. This is the aspect I've been trying to work on with my photography recently.

EDIT: For instance, a search for Eiffel Tower on Flickr tuns up tons of shots. Ones that caught my eye are this, this, this, and this.

Sorry, that was my inner Hugh Conway speaking. In order to be more helpful I'll just say "what smmokan said".

[Lonnie]

sidebar: isn't "composition" as much a technique as lighting?

Very good question. I am teeter-tottering on it. I think I personally would say that composition and technique are both skills. As with any skill, they can be improved by practice and learning.

Very good, thoughtful post over all.

[Fuzz]

In my mind, "technique" = generic term for the whole bag of skills required to create a photo, i.e. what kind of story you want to tell, how you compose, adjust your camera settings, etc. "Technical" as it relates to this discussion I took more to mean the on-camera settings, e.g. aperture, ISO, white balance, etc.

[Dromond]

I've not sure of the answer to the question but I just found this sweet photo on flickr and felt like sharing it:


Untitled by 苏道涛, on Flickr

[pointedem]

for me it's light.



ignore the technicals.
Given any particular photo categorized as great: The command of them is either masterful or laughable, or somewhere inbetween... either way, technicals tend to have zero impact on the end users interpretation of said photo's greatness.

[Mathematics]

anything that evokes some visceral connection to the image...understanding what makes that happen though I think is kind of a moving target. Pro's talk about getting an "eye" for good shots. To me thats noticing the intangible things around you that would contribute to a good image, which is something that takes awhile to develop. I've been a "hobbyist" for about 3 years, and just this past year seem to notice things & frame my pictures a bit differently. I am still kind of stumbling into good shots though...really good photogs seem to have an "eye" for good shots all the time, and seem to be able to consistently pull the intangibles together, no matter the location or circumstance. Thats an ability/talent that seems to be developed over time.

I feel like the technical aspects are getting downplayed here a bit though, the knowledge & gear to make an image happen is what separates the hobbyist/amateur photography from everyone else that owns a camera. Fuzz's astrophotographer, Outabounds' light work, etc...obviously theres a vision, but the right gear & ability to manipulate it is what makes alot of shots.

[Dromond]

I feel like the technical aspects are getting downplayed here a bit though, the knowledge & gear to make an image happen is what separates the hobbyist/amateur photography from everyone else that owns a camera. Fuzz's astrophotographer, Outabounds' light work, etc...obviously theres a vision, but the right gear & ability to manipulate it is what makes alot of shots.

Mastering the basics definitively gets you acceptable photos a lot more easily. It's also achievable for casual photographers. (Hurray!) I still feel like that is about 5% of what it takes to consistently make great photos.