Quality of Pictures

[Findus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mainly through this forum I have been looking at quite some photgraphic site on the web, the pictures that is, one thing has struck me; the technical quality of the pictures on the whole is very good, however I have asked myself what makes a good picture a good picture ?

 

I have come to the conlusion that a good picture is on that I would hang on a wall in my house. Judging the photos by this criteria I have come across very few (in respect to the amount of pictures offered on the web that is) that actually meet this criteria.

 

Perfect photos I find pretty boring, Ansel Adams is a great example of this, although obviously being a great photog, I don't think there is one image I would hang on my wall. I realize that this is all a metter of personal taste but still I would like to know what your views are on the quality of an image.

 

For me it's much more the subject than the technicalities, ahh and I think a picture with grain apeals to me more than ... a picture without grain, I also prefer B&W to colour and really dislike egadurated colour, like Velvia.

 

Going on and on and on (sorry) but I also think this trend of doing people/street or whatever name you give it has gone far enough, people must realize that although they might own a silent rangefinder that this doesn't make them a street photographer, and I don't mean to offend anybody with this statement, but most of these pictures are absolutely meaningless.... (personal vision)

[george +]

As you write; it is " a matter of personal taste ". And you will find that there are people who wish to force their own tastes, and beliefs, on others. Such is the wold; and has been for a long time. And many wars have been fought about such.

 

As to Velvia colours; I don't much care for them either. But there are people who love them. Many in fact. I would not argue with them; as long as they leave me alone.

 

Wow . . . . now I feel better. Thanks for the opportunity.

[johnnyj]

Michaela,

I generally agree with your observation. I've only posted four photos on the forum. But I have done a fair amount of commercial photography and portrait work. Three of the four photos that I posted I also have hanging on my walls and the fourth is part of a documentary. So, when I can carve out some time from work, I'm careful about what I post.

 

I think that many pictures on forums fall into three categories: 1) a wall hanging; 2) conversational; and 3) novice. The "wall hanging" criterion is; a photograph that makes you want to step into it. For different people it will be different pictures but generally it will be a picture that evokes strong but pleasant emotions and it's someplace that you would like to be. We might discuss what "strong but pleasant emotions" are but nonetheless the photograph depicts somewhere you would like to be. Like a good novel, the photograph is well composed, interesting and draws you into it

 

"Conversational" photographs provide pieces of information that you are sharing with others. And since this is a forum you will get photos that, like conversation, are the sharing of experience. Some of these will be technically expert, some not, but still interesting. Like a conversational letter, it can be interesting, well executed, but is basically informational.

 

Then there are the novice photographs which you would not want to "step into" even if you could identify where they were taken, and are technically wanting or so abstract that they're, well, abstract. But, this is someone's beginning. Maybe by viewing other's work they'll be encouraged to experiment, learn, fail, and do it again. Maybe they'll quit and sell their equipment to us at some ridiculously reduced price.

 

It's a forum, which probably means that it's a gallery, a place for conversation (conversational photographs), and someplace safe to start to discern if you have any talent. As you say there is a large percentage of very good photos on this forum and then there are some excellent images on the forum.

 

The "excellent image" or good photograph is the photograph that I want to visit, want to step into to discover either emotion or place and has enough mystery and unusual qualities that I want to visit it each time it's within my view.

 

I generally have no interest in street photography unless it's actually portrait photography in the street (Sebastiao Salgado as an example).

 

Pardon my rambling before I've finished my morning coffee ...

 

John

[Guest Bernd Banken]

Mainly through this forum I have been looking at quite some photgraphic site on the web, the pictures that is, one thing has struck me; the technical quality of the pictures on the whole is very good, however I have asked myself what makes a good picture a good picture ?

 

I have come to the conlusion that a good picture is on that I would hang on a wall in my house. Judging the photos by this criteria I have come across very few (in respect to the amount of pictures offered on the web that is) that actually meet this criteria.

 

Perfect photos I find pretty boring, Ansel Adams is a great example of this, although obviously being a great photog, I don't think there is one image I would hang on my wall. I realize that this is all a metter of personal taste but still I would like to know what your views are on the quality of an image.

 

For me it's much more the subject than the technicalities, ahh and I think a picture with grain apeals to me more than ... a picture without grain, I also prefer B&W to colour and really dislike egadurated colour, like Velvia.

 

Going on and on and on (sorry) but I also think this trend of doing people/street or whatever name you give it has gone far enough, people must realize that although they might own a silent rangefinder that this doesn't make them a street photographer, and I don't mean to offend anybody with this statement, but most of these pictures are absolutely meaningless.... (personal vision)

 

 

Michaela

 

100% agree with you. Your thoughts I made more than thirty years ago. At this time even the name street was not established, I never heard this. And the people only quality minded came from the leica-corner from my point of view, I called them line counter ;-) For me pictures have to hook in disregarding some minor quality issues.

 

I never judge a book by printed mistakes ;-)

 

(Un)fortunately, my early shots have been made by a NikonF so I'm obliged to keep them out here ;-)

 

Pls. look at a real street fightin' photographer :-) :

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

So pls. do your own way in photography as you like it this is the way of your own expression.

 

Regards

Bernd

[ptomsu]

Michaela

 

I generally agree, although I must say a perfect (or almost perfect) photo showing some interesting scene is always more appealing to me than one which lacks sustantial quality.

 

Cheers

[stunsworth]

I don't think the 'hanging on the wall' selection method is applicable in my case. There are pictures by James Nachtway that I admire and more me greatly, but I wouldn't want hanging on my wall. There are some photographs that need to be viewed rarely.

 

My criteria is simple 'I wish I had taken that'. Doesn't necessarily have to be technically perfect, subject/composition is more important to me.

[marc_dufour]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't think the 'hanging on the wall' selection method is applicable in my case. There are pictures by James Nachtway that I admire and more me greatly, but I wouldn't want hanging on my wall. There are some photographs that need to be viewed rarely.

 

My criteria is simple 'I wish I had taken that'. Doesn't necessarily have to be technically perfect, subject/composition is more important to me.

 

Absolutly agree with you, Steve.

A great photo is the one I should want to have taken myself;

the one I really enjoy when I see it;

the one wich encourages me to do it better.

Marc

[christoph_d]

Hello everybody,

 

The question ¨what constitutes a good picture¨ I find a nice one, as, to some extend, it forms the background of any commentary given on pictures in this forum.

 

In my view the first thing about a ¨good¨ picture is the fact that this is a personal, individual choice. What seems good to me doesn´t need to be appear good to anybody else. So the question appears to be one of personal valuation.

 

Secondly there are different categories which can be looked at to value a picture such as technical aspects, composition, content, etc. In my view, a good picture does not need to be perfect in all of these, but will probably excell in at least one of them.

 

Ultimately, my personal choice are pictures that ¨have a story¨, that speak to me, and I find them in all categories, from family pic to street photography. (That´s also why I like for example Rainer Pawellek´s photos: they come with a story)

 

I do not entirely agree with Steve´s view of ¨want to have taken it myself¨. For example: I wish I will never be in a situation where some pictures of war have been taken.

 

Kind regards, C.

[erl]

Ahh! Michaela, I could have easily initiated such a thread myself. I don't have answers, but plenty of questions when it comes to 'good' images. I have always wondered what I would include in an exhibition of my own.

 

Recently, I had the opportunity to test that thought. I was subjected to several months radiation therapy on a daily basis and was depressed by the thought of counting the days. I decided in advance that I would spend the time preparing and presenting my own exhibition of 30 images. I divided the time more or less equally between printing colour, printing B/W and framing.

 

The interesting thing was my selections. Ultimately, I chose images that pleased me and were not necessarily commercial. In fact I tried hard to select images that I knew would not sell. Perverse I know, but this was for me, not the general public. It was a great success and attracted a lot of attention. Unfortunately I sold a few which destroyed my theory that the public will not buy good images, only 'nice scenes'. Or maybe they weren't good after all.

 

I now have a house full of hanging images that would not have otherwise been produced and framed. I enjoy them every day. They are in the main sort of uncategorized pics and vastly varied in subject matter. People are very curious to see such images but would not buy them to hang on their walls. If I can find a common 'theme' in any of then it may be that viewers are curious to know what is really happening in the picture that made me create it.

 

Bit of a ramble but I hope it conforms to your thread.

 

Michaela, am I correct in thinking you are attending/participating in this years "one Challenge?" If so I would love to continue this 'thought' face to face.

 

Cheers,

Erl

[hm1912]

I'm with Steve and Marc with this, to a point. Yes a good photo is one that I wish I could have taken myself, but a great photo is one that I makes me wonder how it was taken so that I learn from it. I think the difference is subtle. It all it took for a photo to be good was that I had the skill to have taken it, then I fear that my judgement of a good photograph may be a bit solopsistic. But to a degree, that is what taste involves. Sometimes what makes a great photo is realizing just how obvious the photograph should be (in terms of subject matter, etc.), but that I didn't see it. All in all, I think that what I'm trying to say is a good photo should grasp my attention and keep it focused.

[earleygallery]

For me a good photograph is one which 'speaks' to me in some way. The same applies to art. Some supposedly great photographs or pieces of art just leave me cold, whilst I can be intrigued by a casual snapshot or amateurs painting.

 

I disagree that great photography is work that I'd choose to hang at home. You might see a great news picture but you probably wouldn't want it on permanent display. There are many images I can recall in my memory. Go along to the National Theatre in London look at the exhibition of press photography - plenty of good images that fall into this category.

 

Then there are the more banal photographs. Again they can be technically perfect in every way. In their own right they are good photographs but they only serve a limited purpose, be it a shot for a holiday brochure, a postcard, product shots, family portrait.

 

As for street photography I'm a big fan - this is also important work from a social documentary point of view. Look at John Deacons work now and what were probably considered mundane images at their time are now a fascinating record of the time. The term 'street' covers such a multitude of subject matter however. Look at http://www.in-public.com for some examples of good street photography.

 

So, leaving aside the technically good, what constitutes a pictorially good photograph very much depends on the personal taste/preference of the viewer IMHO.

 

Regards

[Guest stnami]

stuff that makes a "blind man sing"