# exactly what makes a great photo?



## ph0toe (Aug 30, 2020)

how can i be a great photography if i had already learned the foundation.

exposure triangle- iso, shutter, aperture

knowing when to use auto (moving objects). vs manual (moving laterally, mountains, etc)

depth of field (shallow vs deep) how much you want in focus

getting focus (click AF-on) or use lcd or use viewfinder using the internal focus point and then recomposing shots

half press shutter to take a shot



and then getting composition right by angulating your camera to get the shot you want and eliminating distraction (but i do feel photoshop and lightroom can correct that with rules of third and cropping)



and to make the photos more lively we just adjust exposure, saturation sharpening in photoshop, maybe take some stuff out fix some blemishes if taking portrait photography etc



so what am i missing?

what makes a great photographer?


----------



## AlanKlein (Aug 30, 2020)

When someone looks at your photograph for more than two seconds.


----------



## Strodav (Aug 30, 2020)

As an EE, I picked up the technical side pretty quickly, but am struggling with the creative / artistic side.  Sounds like you've got a good handle on the technical side, but how about the creative / artistic side?  Start by studying great painters and great photographers to understand why their work is so good.  Especially pay attention to lighting.  Plan your shoots with goals in mind like setting emotion, be their in best light, composition (background, background, background), creativity, unique situations, context all while being technically perfect.  Think through your shots, just don't blaze away.  It's the difference between capturing a moment and creating a memorable image.  Post your work and seek feedback from your family, peers, on forums, enter contests.  Don't get frustrated, but work through it.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 30, 2020)

The Dang Factor.



That's when someone looks at it and says, "Dang... I wish I had taken that!"


----------



## Strodav (Aug 30, 2020)

480sparky said:


> The Dang Factor.
> 
> 
> 
> That's when someone looks at it and says, "Dang... I wish I had taken that!"



I start by showing my wife a full screen image.  If she says "Oh Wow!", I know it's a keeper and worth posting.


----------



## SquarePeg (Aug 30, 2020)

ph0toe said:


> what makes a great photographer?



The ability to see the photo before you take it.  Everything else you mentioned is what comes after to make the photo match your vision.


----------



## zombiesniper (Aug 31, 2020)

ph0toe said:


> how can i be a great photography if i had already learned the foundation.



This, stating you have already learned the foundations statement you've used before incorrectly but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have learned since then.



ph0toe said:


> so what am i missing?
> 
> what makes a great photographer?



The technical aspects you've covered but the biggest missing element is having an eye for what is appealing or having a vision of what you want to create. Without these you're just documenting a scene.


----------



## RVT1K (Aug 31, 2020)

Art emulates food...if you like it, it's good.


----------



## mjcmt (Aug 31, 2020)

Study the great photog masters work. This will inspire and direct you more to making great photography than anything else.


----------



## Original katomi (Aug 31, 2020)

Like square peg says in post  6 see the image in your mind first

There are snapshots, grab the moment and hope shots, lucky shots , holiday moment shots ect......
and then there is the planned ones
Where you know what you want to achieve, and have thought how to do so even before You  think about getting the camera out.
Ok it does not alway work out, but at least you can learn why it did or did not.

Ok street /open space photography

Think this through
Old lady 70 ish on the beach skirt hitched up to mid calf just enjoying the moment as she lets the sea wash over her poor ol feet.
 Sun is so that her shadow is on the water
How are you going to photograph this? Do you take the image or respect her privacy
A head shot to capture her face an look of bliss as the sea water eases the pain in her joints
I will allow that like any good street photographer your camera is pre set to the current lighting conditions
Think fast, she will not stay there long.
The title for the image can be
Ah bliss
I’m just a kid at heart
Memories

If you like I will post one of my images and thank you through the thoughts that lead to it as opposed to the tech details
Be warned that my images are out of the box and can be classed as marmite...... you know love or hate them


----------



## charlie76 (Aug 31, 2020)

SquarePeg said:


> The ability to see the photo before you take it.



What she said.  But it's ok to simply get lucky while in pursuit of this ability...once in a while!!


----------



## ph0toe (Aug 31, 2020)

Original katomi said:


> If you like I will post one of my images and thank you through the thoughts that lead to it as opposed to the tech details
> Be warned that my images are out of the box and can be classed as marmite...... you know love or hate them



yes please. i learn better with visuals


----------



## ph0toe (Aug 31, 2020)

zombiesniper said:


> ph0toe said:
> 
> 
> > The technical aspects you've covered but the biggest missing element is having an eye for what is appealing or having a vision of what you want to create. Without these you're just documenting a scene.



so the other part of it would be to set up external factors (setting, lighting, pose (if with a person), and then try my best to emulate what i had in mind.
In that case, that is just an artistic / creative aspect which is unique to anyone and doesn't require one to be a photographer.

I guess what i'm saying is that technically those who classify. themselves as. "pro" are no different than one who can see what they want capture (again, anyone with a eye and a brain can see what is unique to them) and learning the foundation of photography, no?


----------



## Original katomi (Aug 31, 2020)

The thought that lead to this image was that I wanted a tunnel of light
I sat and worked out if I swung a light on a string , letting the string get longer as I walked towards the camera
It took a couple of goes to get the starting point right 
The colour image ..... how about you telling me how you would do it and I will tell how it was done


----------



## zombiesniper (Aug 31, 2020)

ph0toe said:


> In that case, that is just an artistic / creative aspect which is unique to anyone and doesn't require one to be a photographer.
> 
> I guess what i'm saying is that technically those who classify. themselves as. "pro" are no different than one who can see what they want capture (again, anyone with a eye and a brain can see what is unique to them) and learning the foundation of photography, no?



Essentially all of this is correct, however the images you have posted in the past have shown a great lack of the fundamentals.
You start threads that are honestly way above your skill level. This time should be taken to master the basics.
Sucks to be blunt but you haven't taken the hints in previous threads you've started.

Learn and practice the basics until you can shoot CONSISTENT quality images. NOTHING else matters until this is done.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 31, 2020)

IMHO, great photos suppose to create some sort of emotions and/or tell a story.  Knowledge of the technical aspect of photography is suppose to help you to tell stories through photos, but it shouldn't be the primary focus of the photo.  If you look at famous photos in the past, they all have a story.


----------



## gk fotografie (Sep 1, 2020)

ph0toe said:


> how can i be a great photography if i had already learned the foundation.
> 
> exposure triangle- iso, shutter, aperture
> 
> ...



This is the third time you have asked the same kind of question on the TPF forum, but it escapes me why, because "great photographer" isn't a profession you can practice and you can't study for it. A "great photographer" is not only a subjective concept, but also something that has little real value, because what is a "great photographer" to you might be your average photographer taking mediocre photos to me. 

You can't simply decide for yourself whether you want to become or that you are a "great photographer", it's at best a qualification that others could give you and especially your photo work - but usually only after you've died, sorry! - so forget about trivial things like this and start photographing, learn everything about the most diverse photo techniques and experiment a lot. Is there ever someone who thinks you're a "great photographer" then that is fantastic, cherish the moment, but leave it for what it is. Good luck!


----------



## RVT1K (Sep 1, 2020)

I've mentioned this before but I think it is relevant.

There has been something that always stuck in my mind and it was said by an instructor in a digital photography class I took. 

One of the very first things he told the class was essentially "...I can teach you how to work your camera but I can't teach you how to be a photographer...".


----------



## Jeff15 (Sep 1, 2020)

In my case its luck........


----------



## Space Face (Sep 1, 2020)

Perhaps there are no great photographs, only opinions


----------



## ph0toe (Sep 2, 2020)

zombiesniper said:


> ph0toe said:
> 
> 
> > In that case, that is just an artistic / creative aspect which is unique to anyone and doesn't require one to be a photographer.
> ...




What basics? if the technicality is there then what is there to learn? I can turn on a camera, throw in a lens for the setting i want captured, flick it to manual mode and decide my exposure. Position the subject in a nice non-distracting background, use natural light and reflector if necessary to fully lit the face without casting shadow (again if my aim is to get a well light subject). if i want the subject more in focus and block out the background i'll go with a f/2.8 or something like that to get a very shallow depth of field. if i want everything in focus, i'll do the opposite and go with f/22. if i change any settings i'll change the others (shutter and iso). to make sure subject is clear and in focus by using the focus points on the subject or if using manual mode focus on one spot and adjust the focus ring.

iso usually leave it low like < 400 to avoid grainy images. take the best of the bunch of images taken from different angles and put it in photoshop and adjust whatever retouching that needs to be done and done. 

nothing complicated about that.

I don't care that you're being harsh i welcome it, but to act as if i don't know my basic off one image that others have even claim isn't bad just tells me YOU cannot give compliments but only criticism to feed your big ego.


----------



## zombiesniper (Sep 3, 2020)

I agree there's nothing hard about getting a decent photo however from your past threads you have posted one decent photo and about 8 really bad ones and you were still saying you knew all of the fundamentals. Saying you know something and actually knowing something are two different things.

You may have improved since then but you haven't posted anything that would lead me to conclude you've learned anything from your last tirade of threads that were above your skill level.

Here's what I mean.

Some of your photos

You don't understand the basics.


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 3, 2020)

Passion
Vision
Obsession


----------



## Fred von den Berg (Sep 3, 2020)

It's all in the mind.


----------



## Jeff15 (Sep 3, 2020)

The right place at the right time maybe...?


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Sep 7, 2020)

You become a great photographer, the way you become a great songwriter, artist, composure, rock band or hillbilly singer etc. you work at what you like and study the works of others. Then maybe, just maybe, you will develop a following. 

As already mentioned, my personal preference are for pictures that tell a story or hold a person's interest or curiosity. Some prefer abstract or still-life photos or whatever.

Of course a very good rule of thumb is "don't quit you day job".


----------



## Onejar (Sep 8, 2020)

ph0toe said:


> how can i be a great photography if i had already learned the foundation.
> 
> exposure triangle- iso, shutter, aperture
> 
> ...


Some of my shots that I have been really happy with have involved holding the camera lower or higher than a standard shot. I find half of the wow factor just comes from it being different from the other gazillion standard shots out there. Also I am starting to get more confident with telling people where I want them and really thinking about my backgrounds.


----------



## AlanKlein (Sep 8, 2020)

> how can i be a great photography if i had already learned the foundation.
> ...
> so what am i missing?
> 
> what makes a great photographer?


If you want to be told you're a great photographer, ask your mom.


----------



## nmoody (Sep 8, 2020)

As others have said leaning how to use the camera consistently is very important. I know I spent a long time just trying things out and exploring what works and what doesn't before really asking for feedback on what I was producing publicly. Once I had a good enough grasp on the cameras function I moved onto composition. 

For composition I read lots of books. There are tons of great ones out there but here are a few I thought were helpful:
1. Learning to See Creatively by Bryan Peterson
2. The Moment It Clicks by Joe McNally
3. The Photographer’s Eye by Michael Freeman
4. Why Photographs Work by George Barr

I have struggled a lot with trying to understand what makes a good photo. Being someone who is more technical vs creative I have trouble with this aspect of photography the most. I find some of the hardest pictures to get right for me is street photography where you have so many angles, points of interest and lighting challenges. The scene is constantly changing with cars and people moving around and in an instant what you wanted to capture is gone. Its a lot to consider and deal with while still trying to produce something that pleases the eye. 

After trying a few different types of photography I primarily like landscapes. Its much less complicated, things are not moving, I just find a nice location and wait till golden hour. Due to the waiting this gives me time to prep, what settings am I using, how is my white balance, is there a better vantage point of what im trying to capture. Its been fantastic for learning because the environment is so static and I can take my time.

I guess what im trying to say is take smaller bites. Work on a singular thing in an environment that you can control. I spent hours in my back yard taking pictures of flows with different settings and comparing the results. You don't always have to produce a good picture to learn from it, my best lessons were from failures. So don't feel you have to produce something great when you go out, learning can be a far better reward than a great picture.


----------



## AlanKlein (Sep 8, 2020)

If you look at Ansel Adams or any other great photographer, you'll see them showing the same photos over and over again as their "greats".  Most of them were not so great.   So don't feel bad if most of your shots are so-so.  Getting a couple or luckily a few each years is a terrific accomplishment.


----------



## vStiles (Sep 26, 2020)

I'm going to chime in here.  I see a lot of good answers and advice but I don't see the most important factor mentioned.

You have to have "it'.  If you don't have it, you most likely never will.  Talents ARE something that can be discovered and exploited.... but you have to have "it" in you.  You can't force a talent if you don't already have that bug inside you already.

For example:   You want to learn to play guitar.  You buy a 1970 Les Paul, a 2x12 Marshall stack and an ADA head.  Why don't you sound like Jimmy Page?
Same as painting for art.  You have to have that vein of talent in you ; it can't be forced.

A friend of mine has been playing guitar for almost 20 years ; sounds like it's his first year still. He knows all the chords and scales, but.. he doesn't have that "it" in him.

You can read all the books, all the websites, study the masters, but if you don't have that talent for composition in you, you'll never get where you want.  Technical knowledge is a major factor, but not the most important.   Any decent photog knows that a pro can take an awesome image no matter the medium, it's got nothing to do with anything but having that ability to SEE an image in a scene before you take it.  Having the tech know how only assists you in capturing your vision.

Instead of asking ridiculous questions - here's a hint, there IS no BEST photographer - get out and shoot.  You should be learning something EVERYTIME you pull out your camera.  If you're not, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## Strodav (Sep 27, 2020)

vStiles said:


> I'm going to chime in here.  I see a lot of good answers and advice but I don't see the most important factor mentioned.
> 
> You have to have "it'.  If you don't have it, you most likely never will.  Talents ARE something that can be discovered and exploited.... but you have to have "it" in you.  You can't force a talent if you don't already have that bug inside you already.
> 
> ...



When starting out, your keeper rate might be small.  If you put in the time, study the work of great painters and photographers, learn, critically review your work, have others give you feedback and practice, practice, practice, your keeper rate will continue to go up and you will be pleased with your portfolio of best images.  Maybe you can't learn "it", but you can get good enough to make a living at it if you really want to.

I don't have a vintage Les Paul, but I like my Kiesel Aires VI and along with a Fender Hot Rot Deluxe IV and with a couple of pedals I get amazing tone.  I found a very good guitarist with many years of touring experience to teach me.  He wasn't a headliner, but excellent with rhythms and solid with lead and knows music theory inside and out - his degree is in music.  With his help and a lot of practice time, I'm getting pretty good.  I see improvement week after week.  Can I play like Eric Clapton, no, but I'm pretty good at playing a lot of his blues songs.  I'll keep at photography and guitar for my own enjoyment even though I'll never be famous.


----------



## vStiles (Oct 2, 2020)

Missed my point entirely, tbh.

 Did you omit the part about my friend and his playing?  Perfect example.  He wants SO bad to be a good guitar player, but he has ZERO actual musical talent.  Again.. he's been at it for 20 years, still sounds like he just picked it up last week.

ALL talents are the same.  You can only be taught the mechanics.  Whether or not you 'get it', is 100% on you.   You can be taught the relation between shutter / iso / aperture and be taught the rules of compositions.  You can't be taught HOW to put that together on any scene that tickles your fancy.  You have to be able to see that before you even pull your camera out.

You can know all the chords, and all the scales, however, if you don't know how to arrange those to create you own composition ( that is musically correct ), all you're doing is going through the motions.  It's why there are cover bands, honestly.  Not talented enough to write their OWN music, but good enough to mimic another's.

Same thing with a camera. Buy a top line, full framer.  You can take an image that is exposed correctly and follows a rule of thirds ( let's say ). Still doesn't mean it's a great photo , or even a good one, in any way shape or form.   

And the opposite side - I can make a $50 El Degas Sears guitar sound the same as a Steve Vai Jem Universe.  That's not because I just know the chords and scales, right?

So to actually respond to your post, no.  No, I don't believe that 'just practice' is enough.  


:: SIDE NOTE ::

I've got a 7 seven string ESP strat with ( of course ) EMG pickups and a reissue ( 50th year anniversary ) of the '61 BB King black on white solid body Flying V.  Man, the tone of that V is unlike anything I've ever played ; sustain for days .   I play ( live ) through a Fender Deluxe 2 x 12 Tube - strictly for volume - backed on a POD by Line6.  Great little studio tool that POD is.  Can go direct to any medium and the output is studio quality, zero hiss.


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 3, 2020)

vStiles said:


> Missed my point entirely, tbh.
> 
> Did you omit the part about my friend and his playing?  Perfect example.  He wants SO bad to be a good guitar player, but he has ZERO actual musical talent.  Again.. he's been at it for 20 years, still sounds like he just picked it up last week.
> 
> ...


Few people can be a Muhammad Ali, Beethoven, or Dali.  If some bands copy other's music and make themselves and others happy, then that's what it's about.  If we can take pictures of our family and frame the shots and give them as gifts and watch the recipients smile with pleasure, isn't that what it's about?  If we find pleasure in creating things that please us and improving even a little due to practice, what's better than that? 

You are creating the comparison that tells people that their work is not valuable because it doesn't meet your standards.  The fact is most people are just regular folks getting along in this world.  Most of us will never be president, have a billion dollars, or take pictures like Ansel Adams.  That doesn't mean we can't do the best we can and be proud of the results.


----------



## vStiles (Oct 4, 2020)

Totally missed the point, again.

The question asked by the OP was... "exactly, what makes a great photograph"

The answer isn't one that can be given.   Just because TECHNICALLY, you did every thing right DOESN'T mean it's a great photo.
Practice DOESN'T make perfect.    You HAVE to have the talent in you already.    You can't be TAUGHT talent.

You have it , or you don't.


Here's a REALLY good example:

The latest world astronomy photo contest was won by a photographer who took a VERY unconventional photo.  95%+ of astro photographers HATE IT.  They don't like the fact that he used really simple equipment to get a stellar photo that had never been done before.

This photo followed ZERO guidelines for what is considered "proper" astro photography.  Everything this guy did, technically, was 100% AGAINST proper procedure, yet, he still won the contest and $10 grand.

Get my point, now?


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 4, 2020)

One of my elder words of wisdom "even a blind pig finds an acorn in the woods every now and then". Sometimes there's a fine line between two images that are technically correct, but one stands above the other. A good example is the V-J Day in Times Square, by Alfred Eisenstaedt. Just about everone knows the classic image of the sailor and nurse kissing in Times Square, but did you know that there was another photograph of the "same" scene taken at the "same" time from a different angle by another photographer? Most don't because other than a one time release in the NY Times it never caught on. One became iconic in history, the other not.

As said earlier images that portray emotion, or tell a story elevate the image. I'd also add opportunity. Had the photographers been on another corner, would they have captured an equally impressive image? As to talent, no doubt it helps, but it doesn't guarantee results. As pointed out just being born with talent does nothing without opportunity. Likewise all the raw talent in the world goes no where without skill that come with training.


----------



## Space Face (Oct 4, 2020)

smoke665 said:


> Likewise all the raw talent in the world goes no where without skill that come with training.



100%


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 4, 2020)

smoke665 said:


> One of my elder words of wisdom "even a blind pig finds an acorn in the woods every now and then". Sometimes there's a fine line between two images that are technically correct, but one stands above the other. A good example is the V-J Day in Times Square, by Alfred Eisenstaedt. Just about everone knows the classic image of the sailor and nurse kissing in Times Square, but did you know that there was another photograph of the "same" scene taken at the "same" time from a different angle by another photographer? Most don't because other than a one time release in the NY Times it never caught on. One became iconic in history, the other not.
> 
> As said earlier images that portray emotion, or tell a story elevate the image. I'd also add opportunity. Had the photographers been on another corner, would they have captured an equally impressive image? As to talent, no doubt it helps, but it doesn't guarantee results. As pointed out just being born with talent does nothing without opportunity. Likewise all the raw talent in the world goes no where without skill that come with training.


Yes, God plays a hand in our results as well.  Accepting that it came out the way it was suppose to and you did the best you could relieves a lot of angst and misery and "what ifs".  Look at your pictures, pat yourself on the shoulder and say, "Wow.  I like the way it came out.  Even better than last years."


----------



## snowbear (Oct 4, 2020)

These days, marketing plays a roll, as well.


----------



## Space Face (Oct 12, 2020)

Boy, I've read some drivel in this place.


----------



## Space Face (Oct 12, 2020)

Oh, very good then.


----------



## Qsourof (Oct 12, 2020)

The most important element of a good *photo* is the ability of the *photograph* to communicate with the viewer. It should be able to tell a story through its composition, lighting, and most importantly its subject matter.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Oct 13, 2020)

Since a great photo is a matter of opinion, it is easy to go down a path that no one, or very few, like. Or, a path that the folks have seen too many of.

If, like an impressionist artist, and you have is a small but high dollar following. you may be okay. If you crawl thought the snakes and underbrush to catch a shot of some unique wildlife activities you may have a saleable product. 

If you just take photographs, you are literally up against the world; or at least every amateur photographer with post processing capabilities. So why do some photographer develop a market for their product? They are good at what they do and they are generally great at self promotion and driven by their art.

There is also often a fair amount of luck, being at the right place at the right time.

Good Luck


----------



## flyingPhoto (Jul 5, 2021)

a "great photo" just talks to you. It doesnt say much but it leaves a little hit on the back of your head that you cant really get rid of. 

At work at breaks i sit by big windows, 20 x 30 feet overlooking a patio area with decorative grasses placed here and there.  Theres a few grasses that NEED to be photographed... they just say something to me for some reason that works. 

Yet for someone else, they wouldnt be more then average landscaping photo.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2021)

an obnoxious gimmick, preferably one that’s overly sentimental or cliche, bright colors and shot under good natural lighting  that you don’t actually have any photographic or artistic control over - but will gladly take credit for nonetheless.

In fact, it doesn’t really matter what you’re photographing, so long as it’s shot between may and September between 5-7 PM under partly cloudy skies, ideally just after a light rainstorm.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jul 6, 2021)

unpopular said:


> an obnoxious gimmick, preferably one that’s overly sentimental or cliche, bright colors and shot under good natural lighting  that you don’t actually have any photographic or artistic control over - but will gladly take credit for nonetheless.
> 
> In fact, it doesn’t really matter what you’re photographing, so long as it’s shot between may and September between 5-7 PM under partly cloudy skies, ideally just after a light rainstorm.


Seems like you have some issues…


----------



## unpopular (Jul 6, 2021)

SquarePeg said:


> Seems like you have some issues



by issues you mean thoughtless, uninspired snapshots of Half Dome, why yes, yes I do.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jul 6, 2021)

unpopular said:


> by issues you mean thoughtless, uninspired snapshots of Half Dome, why yes, yes I do.



If you’re referring to someone else’s photos then I have to ask why you care?  If you’re referring to your own then I understand that we all feel uninspired sometimes and the only way to work through it is to keep shooting until it comes back.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 7, 2021)

The question was what makes a great photo, and I provided a sarcastic response.

Frequently photography that gains a lot of popular attention is cliche, uninspired and overdone and relies on qualities that the photographer has no legitimate claim to. Go to any national park anywhere in the world and you'll find gaggles of photographers literally photographing the exact same thing that has been photographed over and over in the exact same way.

It's lazy.

Yes. I do care about photography and visual art; I've dedicated a lot of time, energy, education and eventually my career. So yes, my comment was sarcastic and snide, but we can applaud the eye candy over and over, we can praise the "good light" and "pretty colors" ... or we can encourage one another to push boundaries and challenge ourselves and each other to actually _say something that's worth saying. _

After all, "[...] quality is not the product of a machine", right?

But the result of this effort won't ever be "great photography"; great photography is something created by machines programmed to create great photographs.


----------



## weepete (Jul 7, 2021)

unpopular said:


> The question was what makes a great photo, and I provided a sarcastic response.
> 
> Frequently photography that gains a lot of popular attention is cliche, uninspired and overdone and relies on qualities that the photographer has no legitimate claim to. Go to any national park anywhere in the world and you'll find gaggles of photographers literally photographing the exact same thing that has been photographed over and over in the exact same way.
> 
> ...



You do have a general point, though I do take issue with the "shot under good natural lighting  that you don’t actually have any photographic or artistic control over".

One of the most challenging aspects of landscape photography is dealing with situations you don't have control over. Sometimes it involves being dedicated and revisiting places until you get the right lighting which involves a dedication, planning, and determination that you don't need in a controlled environment. Sure, there are places in the world that have predictable weather and lighting conditions, and I'm pretty sure you had the El Capitan (or similar) shot somewhere in your head when you wrote that. Maybe that's a place you can rock up to and get easily, I don't know. A lot of places in the world don't, and you need to quickly change and find compositions and lighting that works. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it a bad photo, and just because you've seen similar shots doesn't make it poor either. 

If you strive to take a photograh of something else that's never been photographed you'll never take a shot of anything. 

So, to answer the OP, a great photograph can be many things, a great photographer can be too. It just depends on the measuring stick you use.


----------



## Rickbb (Jul 7, 2021)

unpopular said:


> The question was what makes a great photo, and I provided a sarcastic response.
> 
> Frequently photography that gains a lot of popular attention is cliche, uninspired and overdone and relies on qualities that the photographer has no legitimate claim to. Go to any national park anywhere in the world and you'll find gaggles of photographers literally photographing the exact same thing that has been photographed over and over in the exact same way.



They aren’t photographers, they are tourists taking snapshots.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 7, 2021)

weepete said:


> You do have a general point, though I do take issue with the "shot under good natural lighting  that you don’t actually have any photographic or artistic control over".
> 
> One of the most challenging aspects of landscape photography is dealing with situations you don't have control over. Sometimes it involves being dedicated and revisiting places until you get the right lighting which involves a dedication, planning, and determination that you don't need in a controlled environment. Sure, there are places in the world that have predictable weather and lighting conditions, and I'm pretty sure you had the El Capitan (or similar) shot somewhere in your head when you wrote that. Maybe that's a place you can rock up to and get easily, I don't know. A lot of places in the world don't, and you need to quickly change and find compositions and lighting that works. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it a bad photo, and just because you've seen similar shots doesn't make it poor either.
> 
> ...



What I am saying is that ‘good natural lighting’ isn’t something a photographer we take credit for but is often something people attribute to the photographer.

Worse yet, ‘golden-hour’ photography is not only aesthetically unchallenging, but also an exposure at 7pm  after a light summer rainstorm requires virtually zero technical skill whatsoever.

This is kind of my point though. ‘Great Photography’ is often about the subject, not about the photograph or even the story or narrative it tells.

Now, I do agree that the Modernist obsession with originality isn’t important (and ultimately futile), though what I’m trying to say is that a photographer should aim to say something beyond the same thing that’s been said before.

Nodding in agreement about Yellowstone or Yosemite makes ‘Great Photography’ precisely because we can all agree that El Captain and Half Dome and Yellowstone Falls are spectacular - if that’s what you’re saying that’s Ofcourse fine, but saying it in the same way that has always been said - if that’s the _goal - _then it’s not so much about the exploration and discovery of the world we share so much as it’s what we’re conditioned to believe we already know - it’s not about our experiences nor even really the experience of the audience. in my opinion this last point makes it much, much worse.

Rather it’s about reinforcing a myth in 4:5 aspect ratio. At some point it’s a photograph of a photograph.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 8, 2021)

unpopular said:


> What I am saying is that ‘good natural lighting’ isn’t something a photographer we take credit for but is often something people attribute to the photographer.
> 
> Worse yet, ‘golden-hour’ photography is not only aesthetically unchallenging, but also an exposure at 7pm  after a light summer rainstorm requires virtually zero technical skill whatsoever.
> 
> ...


I understand your point about meaningful pictures that say something.  But we all can't be Shakespeare.  Nor want to be.

There's nothing wrong with beauty for beauty's sake.  Getting out to a magnificent park or just a nice place where you live when the lighting is grand and enjoying God and nature while trying to capture its beauty has a lot to say for just that.  Taking home a part of it and hanging on your wall is surely a lot better than the angst we have to live with in public and private a lot of the time.  Who needs to capture that when I'm out just shooting my camera?  Photography for many of us is to escape from trying to make a point.  We already spend our working lives doing that most of the time. 

There's a lot to admire about magic hour.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2021)

AlanKlein said:


> There's a lot to admire about magic hour.



As I wrote, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, what you say doesn't have to have some deep, coded meaning in order to be worth saying. The problem is that cliches and tropes are the creation of man - not the creation of God.



> we all can't be Shakespeare



Perhaps, but this thread is about Shakespeare, isn’t it?


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jul 8, 2021)

Unpopular,

Oh if only some magic formula existed;     a lot of us would be rich.

Skill + Luck = Success.....  I will let others debate which is most important.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2021)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Unpopular,
> 
> Oh if only some magic formula existed;     a lot of us would be rich.
> 
> Skill + Luck = Success.....  I will let others debate which is most important.



just put a baby in a watermelon or something.


----------



## JoeW (Jul 9, 2021)

I think the conversation has strayed off the question.  The question is about what makes a great photograph. 

And there are two factors that determine if a photograph is a great one.  And no, it's not if it's an image of a lovely scene.  Those are just random snapshots and you're shooting Yellowstone vs. your garbage can.

1.  Composition.  A great photograph shows some compositional elements that make it visually compelling or draws attention or makes you linger or brings attention and your focus to it.  It can be a very mundane scene--but visually composed and it grabs your attention. Brandt, Eggleston and Mary Ellen Marks all shot stuff that was compositionally strong even if the subject was...ordinary or banal or common. If a photographer has chosen wisely, then he/she has picked compositional elements to emphasize that make you go "damn--that's good."  And others saw the same scene but didn't think to change the WB or the ISO or framed the subject different or didn't change the perspective or missed the leading line or the "S" curve or didn't use color wisely or didn't wait 10 minutes for the sun to go behind the could.  Composition.

2.  Timing.  And by this, I mean you happen to be in the right place at the right time and are prepared to capture (I hate that concept but it fits in this case) the moment.  The classic for me is Robert Capa's photo of the soldier in the surf at Omaha beach.  Look at the photo--it's not in color, it's grainy, it's out of focus, you can't tell what is water vs. an object (or even a body).  But damn does it capture the moment.  It conveys danger and movement and threat and isolation. It's one of the most iconic photos of WW2. These kind of "timing" pictures that are great photos are often of significant events.  I don't mean posed events, I mean something where you go "that is a slice of history" or "that tells a story about a significant person or event." Think "Tank Man" in Beijing after Tiananmen Square.  Think of Yousef Karsh's portrait of Churchill after he snatched his cigar away.  Think some of the best Pulitzer Prize photo journalism photos you've seen--they're often a function of timing, the people involved, and the event.

So that's my answer to "what makes a great photo?"


----------



## SquarePeg (Jul 9, 2021)

What makes a great photo is the emotion it invokes.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 9, 2021)

JoeW said:


> 1.  Composition


composition though can get carried away:






certainly there needs to be structure, but structure can take many forms, and there’s a tendency to use whats essential pseudoscientific western numerology as some golden rule (pun intended).

Although often even more entrenched in Western tradition, musicians I think have a stronger vocabulary for composition, with ideas of tension and release and narrative that we visual artists can learn a lot from if we can translate them from the temporal domain of music to the spatial domain of picture.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 9, 2021)

SquarePeg said:


> What makes a great photo is the emotion it invokes.



In that case Anne Geddes is an ABSOLUTE MASTER.

-

manipulating emotion for the sake of it is tremendously easy.


----------



## JoeW (Jul 9, 2021)

unpopular said:


> composition though can get carried away:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree.  We're defining composition differently.  You're assuming there are set rules that must be obeyed!  I'm saying there are about 1,000 rules regarding visual art.  And it's impossible to follow them all.  So wise decisions about composition (when to "fill the frame" vs. when to "use negative space."  When to go "high key" vs. when to "use chiaroscuro"--all of those are composition decisions.

To not use composition is to take snapshots.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 9, 2021)

JoeW said:


> I disagree.  We're defining composition differently.  You're assuming there are set rules that must be obeyed!  I'm saying there are about 1,000 rules regarding visual art.  And it's impossible to follow them all.  So wise decisions about composition (when to "fill the frame" vs. when to "use negative space."  When to go "high key" vs. when to "use chiaroscuro"--all of those are composition decisions.
> 
> To not use composition is to take snapshots.


I think we agree. I just wanted to point this out.

-

As for snapshots I think it has more to do with function. A snapshot is intended to augment memories, it’s intended to be meaningful only to the people that were present when the image was taken. Almost everything I do is intentionally composed ("well composed" is a matter of opinion), it's something I can't not do and at this point I even something I have to put in any effort into doing. But that doesn't mean I can elevate every snapshot I take as something 'great'.

Journalism is intended to communicate something about the subject, to reveal the subject to people some meaning without having actually been there to witness it. Journalism is about communication and documentation. The goal of the journalist is to capture the pivotal moment that tells the whole of the story in one single frame.

Fine Art is intended to examine or explore the subject, to have an open dialog about its meaning, or to exist as an object on its own that is independent of the subject. This dialog does not have to be profound, it could be as simple as 'this flower is pretty' - we're examining the beauty of a flower, and that's ok. However, I personally believe the more in depth that dialog is the more interesting the art.

None of these functions are inherently inferior within the context of their intent. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with snapshots. You can have a great snapshot, but it won't be anything special for anyone else. The problem is when photographers attempt force a function onto the audience and dictate on our behalf the relationship we’re expected to have.

Of course ultimately it’s going to depend on the audience an our relationship with the image. That’s why I wrote what I did.

‘Great Photography’ is something easy to digest, something we all can agree with and ultimately something we all already know. A successful image, though is one that meets it's functional objective.

In my opinion one of my most "successful" images outright unsettled and even offended many of the viewers, yet was just a photograph of an empty wall, a door and a dirty hand print. But people *hated it*, even strongly so. It generated a lot of very visceral reactions in people. This dialog between the image and the viewer was what made it successful, not so much the composition or subject itself.


----------



## zulu42 (Jul 10, 2021)

My mom has a really keen eye for identifying great photos


----------



## JoeW (Jul 10, 2021)

unpopular said:


> I think we agree. I just wanted to point this out.
> 
> -
> 
> ...


Well, I think I get your point (though I may be wrong).  But I don't think you get mine.

For instance, the example you gave at the end is a perfect illustration of my point--it proves what I'm saying.  Composition is key.  Your photo of the wall, door, and handprint speaks to the power of composition--it's all about composition.  The resulting photo produced a reaction (which you liked--even if it was negative).  If you had decided to shoot it so there was also a table, a cobweb, a broom, a coat rack, and an armoire in the picture with the wall, door, and handprint, I bet you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction--it just would have looked like a bunch of clutter.


----------



## flyingPhoto (Jul 10, 2021)

Some of the greatest images in photographic history have been nothing more then "snap shots".  Yet due to the subject on film, and with personal experiences, they became something more then a photo. 

The best known one would be the execution photo The Surprising True Story Behind The Iconic Saigon Execution Photo

Just a mere snap shot of the execution of an enemy communist military officer that had helped kill 30 to 50 civilians the night before. As part of the norths launch of the tet offensive plan to kill as many southern vietnamese military officials and families as possible. 

A lawful execution, yet it became the defined moment the United States is considered to have lost the war. 

Yet unnumbered photos of the communists killing civilians and american personnel go un seen, un published.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 11, 2021)

JoeW said:


> Well, I think I get your point (though I may be wrong).  But I don't think you get mine.
> 
> For instance, the example you gave at the end is a perfect illustration of my point--it proves what I'm saying.  Composition is key.  Your photo of the wall, door, and handprint speaks to the power of composition--it's all about composition.  The resulting photo produced a reaction (which you liked--even if it was negative).  If you had decided to shoot it so there was also a table, a cobweb, a broom, a coat rack, and an armoire in the picture with the wall, door, and handprint, I bet you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction--it just would have looked like a bunch of clutter.


Composition is important, like I said there has to be structure to make sense; but I don't think it's what makes a photograph successful. I've taken plenty of well composed photographs that aren't very good, and I've taken photos which the entire point was to lack any structure at all.

I maintain that the success of an image depends on the interaction and dialog between the photograph-object and the audience.


----------



## weepete (Jul 11, 2021)

I think it can be boiled down to a single thing......how well does a photohraph fulfil it's intended purpose?


----------



## JoeW (Jul 11, 2021)

unpopular said:


> Composition is important, like I said there has to be structure to make sense; but I don't think it's what makes a photograph successful. I've taken plenty of well composed photographs that aren't very good, and I've taken photos which the entire point was to lack any structure at all.
> 
> I maintain that the success of an image depends on the interaction and dialog between the photograph-object and the audience.


You're agreeing with me completely.  You just don't realize it.  

First, there is no such thing as a "well composed photograph" in the manner that you refer to.  There is no such thing as a "well composed photograph" where you follow all the rules.  You can't--it's impossible.  Instead, you have to choose which composition elements to use and which to ignore or violate.  

A photographer who deliberately composes a photo is someone who is saying "I'm going to utilize these 5-10 visual rules and ignore these 500 visual rules."  You say your photo was "well composed."  I'd argue no.  I don't doubt you composed it.  But you chose the wrong elements to focus on and thus it flopped.  So it wasn't "well composed."  

What you're really saying is that you followed some rules.  Any time you do something other than a snapshot, even if it's as basic as getting closer or further away or changing the DoF, you're engaging in some composition.  But you seem to think "well, because I got closer or further away/adjusted my WB or ISO that means it will be a great photo."  No, all it means is that you didn't take a snapshot.

You then say you took photos that lacked any structure at all.  And your point is?  That's still composition.  The difference between a picture with no composition and one with is called a snapshot.  Any time you make any deliberate choice to do something to alter it (get closer, change exposure compensation), you're doing some composing.  None of that means it will be a great shot.  But what makes a great shot (other than timing/syncronicity/events) is always composition.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 12, 2021)

on one side you seem to be saying composition matters and is one quality of a great photograph, but on the other you're saying composition is inevitable and yet still good composition is contrived. So which is it?

What I'm saying is that composition is the language that images exist in. That's it. Composition adds clarity and structure. You can write a well composed book, you can have excellent command over language, but that doesn't make you Steinbeck. Grapes of Wrath isn't great literature because it was well written, of course it is, The Grapes of Wrath is great literature because it has something to say and written well enough to convey those ideas.

Naturally, on the other hand you can have all the ideas in the world, but if you can't structure those ideas in a cohesive way, then it doesn't matter.

Also, I'll point out, your other qualities of "great photography", timing, synchronicity and event ... I personally have zero interest in the temporal space of my subjects, but rather I am more interested in ideas such as permanence, liminality and stillness. I don't see my photography as a "slice in time", but rather an appropriation of context.


----------



## JoeW (Jul 12, 2021)

unpopular said:


> on one side you seem to be saying composition matters and is one quality of a great photograph, but on the other you're saying composition is inevitable and yet still good composition is contrived. So which is it?
> 
> What I'm saying is that composition is the language that images exist in. That's it. Composition adds clarity and structure. You can write a well composed book, you can have excellent command over language, but that doesn't make you Steinbeck. Grapes of Wrath isn't great literature because it was well written, of course it is, The Grapes of Wrath is great literature because it has something to say and written well enough to convey those ideas.
> 
> ...


No, I'm not saying composition is inevitable.  What you are guilty of is claiming that I say if a photo has composition, then it's a great photo.  Nope.

For instance, any time you crop a photo, you've engaged in at least some modest level of composition.  That doesn't make it great.  There are effective examples of composition and ineffective levels of it.  You said some of your "unstructured" photos got the most dialog.  If you made any decisions either pre-shoot or post-production about what to include or exclude, what was the focal point,. DoF, what lines to emphasize, how to use light, if you filled the frame or used negative space, where the horizon fell, if it felt busy or passive, if the light was cold or warm, the level of contrast, or any one of a hundred other compositional questions than you engaged in composing your photo.  None of that means your composition was effective or engaging.

As I said earlier, there are two things that determine if a photo is great:
--composition (the thought that goes in to the photo to compose the shot and/or the post-production elements) is the photo connects or resonates or stimulates with some viewers.  Or...
--the timing, nature, subject of the photo (like a slice of history or a remarkable event).  Those are the Pulitzer Prize photo winners we see like Tank Man.

Don't use literature examples--they're misleading and don't apply. We're talking VISUAL ART.  For instance, the subconscious impact of a diagonal line.  When you talk about language and written words, you're confusing the issue.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 13, 2021)

flyingPhoto said:


> Some of the greatest images in photographic history have been nothing more then "snap shots".  Yet due to the subject on film, and with personal experiences, they became something more then a photo.


Yes! This is why the artists’ intent is unimportant to the function and meaning of the image. After a work is completed the artist becomes the audience and his or her opinion is as valid as anyone else’s.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jul 16, 2021)

What makes a great photograph or any piece of art is to subjective to classify.

My prime example was a day at and art galley. I was captivated with the Hudson River School of art. 19th century river valley scenes that were simply captivating.  

In another gallery a group of people were standing around admiring some impressionist art work. I founds the impressionist work little more than lines and scribbles on canvas but these folks were also captivated.

 I could never afford a Hudson River Valley painting, but I would not waist the time, carting home to an impressionist print.

Many of the folks I know would trade either, for a good photo of their grand kids. 

"Good Art" is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Dave Maciak (Jul 17, 2021)

Jeff15 said:


> In my case its luck........


There is a photo of a little girl, horrible burns from napalm, in Vietnam.  The photographer simply turned around, made 2 quick snaps.  Pure luck; right place, right time. photo titled "Napalm Girl." Won the Pulitzer Prize.
Yes luck is a big factor.
BTW little girl is alive and still going through surgeries.


----------



## flyingPhoto (Jul 17, 2021)

Dave Maciak said:


> There is a photo of a little girl, horrible burns from napalm, in Vietnam.  The photographer simply turned around, made 2 quick snaps.  Pure luck; right place, right time. photo titled "Napalm Girl." Won the Pulitzer Prize.
> Yes luck is a big factor.
> BTW little girl is alive and still going through surgeries.


And the first time child pornography made the front page world wide and won a pulitzer.  

as sturges and mann most likely didnt win one


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 18, 2021)

Dave Maciak said:


> There is a photo of a little girl, horrible burns from napalm, in Vietnam.  The photographer simply turned around, made 2 quick snaps.  Pure luck; right place, right time. photo titled "Napalm Girl." Won the Pulitzer Prize.
> Yes luck is a big factor.
> BTW little girl is alive and still going through surgeries.


Being in a war zone isn't luck.


----------



## Dave Maciak (Jul 18, 2021)

AlanKlein said:


> Being in a war zone isn't luck.


Could not agree more ; been there, done that.


----------

