A Good Picture

[don_panko]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's true that a great picture is the result of a great photographer's skill and not the camera but for me there is something unique about the M8 . It's the ability to use old lens that capture the feeling of photographs in the past. It's the one endearing feature of the camera than can result in great pictures that are different from those created by state-of-the-art cameras today.

[luigi bertolotti]

Badpets... I've tried to take seriously the second part of your question, and thought a little of it... (the question of "what is a good picture", in itself alone, can clearly bring to hundreds of opinions... I limited my thoughts to what is a good picture TAKEN BY ME).

 

So... M8 is a digital camera, and I decided to have it... to be precise:

- I decided time had came to use "the latest technology" (digital)

- I decided to buy the M8 (for I used Leicas for >25 yrs., for I loved the brand, for I liked RF and the handling, for I had Leica lenses... not for its PROPER technology)

 

My point is :

- digital (=M8) makes you possible a lot of TUNING on the picture that was impossible (or near) to make by yourself with film.

- so, a good picture (repeat, taken by me) is a pic in which, after having it printed, I recognize the mood that made me decide "I want to catch this moment... I like this imagery".

- a good picture "using the last technology" is one in which the USE of the possibilities given by tech, has allowed me to obtain an image in which THE MOOD I quoted above is better recognized.

 

That's all, to be quick... I decided to write this because a recent pic I posted ("waterfall" or something...) has been, for me, one of the (many) instances in which I experienced that it was the "technology" that allowed me to reach a point when I finally say to myself "THIS is the way I saw and lived, in my intimate view, THAT scene".

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[bill]

...but for me there is something unique about the M8 . It's the ability to use old lens that capture the feeling of photographs in the past.

 

Good grief.

 

Here is a camera that uses old lenses to capture the feeling, etc...

 

 

 

And look! Here's another, in current production...

 

 

I can think of a few more too...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Guest stnami]

:

 

You have to learn to understand that people do think DIFFERENTLY than you do and you cannot always be right

........now that makes you very wrong

[JHAG]

My first rule for a picture is that it should exhibit continuous movement.

 

Yes indeed, Bill !

 

Just add a word :

 

Memory.

[stunsworth]

Imants, actually if you substitute the work 'I' for the word 'you' in the quote from your message, that would be a very good mantra for us all to repeat first thing in the morning.

 

I'd never claim to be right all the time. Only a fool would do so.

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Steve's quote of his day

 

 

I have to learn to understand that people do think DIFFERENTLY than I do and you cannot always be right ........now that makes me very wrong

[bill]

How right you are, Steve.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[stunsworth]

Steve's quote of his day

 

Almost, but not quite, Imants <grin>

[Kent10D]

The problem with the question is that there's no such thing as a "good picture" for all viewers.

 

As a slightly extreme example: a picture of my deceased father can have a powerful emotional effect on me, but is unlikely to have the same effect on anyone else.

 

Different people respond in different ways. As someone else mentioned, some people revere Ansel Adams while others find him boring. And just because a photograph is considered a classic doesn't mean that all viewers see the same value in it.

 

No offense intended, but I think the question is basically impossible to answer.

[stunsworth]

The problem with the question is that there's no such thing as a "good picture" for all viewers.

 

Exactly. My response - and I'm not being flippant - is that a good photograph is a photograph that I think is good. I doubt that I'll ever think that one of those horrible (subjective I know) tobacco grad landscapes will ever make it onto the list, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of one looking 'good' one day.

[ndjambrose]

Badpets - your question is like asking: "What is a 'good meal' ?". There can be no right answer and no wrong answer. And therefore no answer.

 

At best you'll get a list of reactions that people have to pictures. But you'll know no more than before you asked the question.

 

When Steve says a "good picture" is one that's not a "bad picture", he's given you a perfectly meaningful response.

[microview]

How right you are, Steve.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Except that the word construction 'different than' is a detestable use of English! Never mind that Bill Bryson says it's OK...

[morffin]

Instant impact... lasting appeal.

 

A picture that puts food on my family is good too.

[KM-25]

One should never associate a good picture with specific gear, that is not a productive way to look at it.

 

A good photo...no, an outstanding photo should be bigger than you and the camera put together.

[Tina Manley]

I agree with most of what others have already said. A good picture isn't determined by what equipment is used but by what affect the picture has on the viewer. That affect is also determined by what the viewer is looking for in the picture - a family snapshot, fine art, portrait of a loved one, photojournalism, travel documentation, insight into other worlds, a life changing experience, a decisive moment! If the experience of the photograph meets the expectation, it's a good or great picture!

 

In order to meet the expectations of the viewers of my photographs, I use Leica M8's

 

Tina

Tina Manley- powered by SmugMug

[badpets]

Hello, thanks Bill. Regarding my first reply to Steve, it was actually kinda in a joking mode since I felt Steve didn't treat my question seriously in the first place. If you read the rest of Steve's comments above, you'll know that he doesn't pay others too respect, for instance, he labels people who apply rules in photography as lack of inspiration, so and so... sure, I agree he's entitled to that. But why I'm the one who's being criticized here?? I'm not here to stir things up; just thought that my thread/question can deserve a little fairer and more understandable treatment.

 

 

I mean this in the truest possible sense, and not to be insulting, but that assertion is not only incorrect, but downright illogical.

 

Show me a "unique" image that could not have been taken with any other camera. This is a matter of the philosophy of photography not the light-tight tool that just happened to have been used.

 

Steve's responses have been cogent and on-topic. You may disagree with him and his opinions, but there is no need to adopt the tone you have - he is as entitled to his subjective view as you are to yours.

 

Now, as to your original question, a "good picture" in my subjective opinion has a number of attributes. It makes me look twice, and long. It moves me, or resonates in some way. If it is one I have taken, then it is one that I feel proud of, and willing to share. What it is not, in all probability is technically perfect (for which read "sterile") nor is it likely to be arch, knowing, self-referential or consciously setting out to be "art". It won't be a slow-shuttered, tobacco-gradded coastal shot, a moody sunset or a representation of a cat, dog or baby. It will not be photoshopped to death, and it particularly won't be HDR'd. It will be something that appeals to the mind and soul in equal measure, and it will linger in the memory long after the physical image has gone.

 

Thank you for a thought-provoking question. Please open your mind to the replies.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[badpets]

Exactly! I think many are still referring "good picture" to old day film standards including myself too.

 

 

Badpets... I've tried to take seriously the second part of your question, and thought a little of it... (the question of "what is a good picture", in itself alone, can clearly bring to hundreds of opinions... I limited my thoughts to what is a good picture TAKEN BY ME).

 

So... M8 is a digital camera, and I decided to have it... to be precise:

- I decided time had came to use "the latest technology" (digital)

- I decided to buy the M8 (for I used Leicas for >25 yrs., for I loved the brand, for I liked RF and the handling, for I had Leica lenses... not for its PROPER technology)

 

My point is :

- digital (=M8) makes you possible a lot of TUNING on the picture that was impossible (or near) to make by yourself with film.

- so, a good picture (repeat, taken by me) is a pic in which, after having it printed, I recognize the mood that made me decide "I want to catch this moment... I like this imagery".

- a good picture "using the last technology" is one in which the USE of the possibilities given by tech, has allowed me to obtain an image in which THE MOOD I quoted above is better recognized.

 

That's all, to be quick... I decided to write this because a recent pic I posted ("waterfall" or something...) has been, for me, one of the (many) instances in which I experienced that it was the "technology" that allowed me to reach a point when I finally say to myself "THIS is the way I saw and lived, in my intimate view, THAT scene".

[PeterP]

What constitutes a good picture ?? Same question as what constitutes good art ( or art in general) . Or even good design.

First of all this is a very subjective criterion .

Second , it is whatever the market will bear.

 

It is easy to discern in retrospect , because of the obvious .

 

Any attempts to define a good picture in terms of the equipment that you or someone else uses is absolutely foolish .

 

PeterP

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[badpets]

Think about a Lomo toy cameras. I think it's a perfect example how instrument can dominate the result of image besides photographer's sense/skill. And the difference between film and digital cameras is that now we have sensor, internal processor and software etc. as variables that may contribute to the final result.

 

 

Many people will agree that Henri Cartier-Bresson did take some very good pictures; and among those who agree on this, there are many who would say that his using a Leica camera was necessary for his results. If there is any truth in this assumption, it just means that somebody who was able to create unique images found the instrument to do this. It can never mean that using the instrument enables anybody to create anything.

 

A good image taken with the help of a photograhical instrument will reveal the formal understanding of the photographer and the technical result of arresting time on a visible media to more people than those who may have looked at the motive at the same moment the photographer pressed the button. The good image does not depend on knowing the whereabouts and times when and how it was created. It even will make those who regard it, forget that it was taken by a photographic instrument.