What makes a great photograph

[gstark]

Hehehe...I get ya!

Im Buddhist...I question EVERYTHING till I get an answer!!!!

I'm a Bhuddist too... as part of my recently achieved enlightenment, I only question things that have an answer

I'm a consultant.

I only ever ask a question if and when I already know what the answer will be.

[Escapism]

I'm reasonably familiar with Buddhism (Mum is a 'practising' Buddhist, actually she is in India right now staying with monks!) and from what I know there is a reasonably significant 'Faith' aspect in it... just like all of the other religions...

Yeah I get asked about that a lot...there are many many schools out there, some require faith, others none. I guess it depends on how you understand the path.

To me, there is no need for faith in any part of life...if you have to put your faith in something, you havnt researched it enough.

But thats just my 2c worth...which after rent is actually only .5c

[Escapism]

Hehehe...I get ya!

Im Buddhist...I question EVERYTHING till I get an answer!!!!

I'm a Bhuddist too... as part of my recently achieved enlightenment, I only question things that have an answer

I'm a consultant.

I only ever ask a question if and when I already know what the answer will be.

Hahaha GOLD!

[jamesw]

Hehehe...I get ya!

Im Buddhist...I question EVERYTHING till I get an answer!!!!

I'm a Bhuddist too... as part of my recently achieved enlightenment, I only question things that have an answer

I'm a consultant.

I only ever ask a question if and when I already know what the answer will be.

Off topic, but

Dad's a management type consultant, whenever i ask him what the f**k he does, its usually:

I don't give organisations the answers... Merely questions that they need to ask themselves

Or something along those lines.

To me, it sounds liek a good way to make a lot of money!

[phillipb]

Ok, after reading the last couple of pages of this thread, I now have a couple of questions.
There seems to be some debate about candids versus crafted photos. Am I to assume then that only crafted photos can be great?
What if a lousy snapshooter flukes a one in a million shot that cannot be replicated, is that photo less of a photo because it wasn't crafted by a great photographer?

[jamesw]

Ok, after reading the last couple of pages of this thread, I now have a couple of questions.
There seems to be some debate about candids versus crafted photos. Am I to assume then that only crafted photos can be great?

I think that the candid VS crafted photo is essentially a mismatch, I think Gary was alluding to this with his posts. Most candid photos are crafted. A candid photo is just a photo that the subject is not aware of the photographer. Simple as that.

I could grab my camera, point it at a crowd without looking through the viewfinder, and that'd be an uncrafted candid shot. It's more than likely that it'd be crap, too.

But generally, I think, most people who are taking candid shots have some vision of the photograph they want, and are simply waiting for the subject to behave how they want!

What if a lousy snapshooter flukes a one in a million shot that cannot be replicated, is that photo less of a photo because it wasn't crafted by a great photographer?

I think it's still just as good/great a photo. As much a people sometimes want to forget it, we are judging the photo; not the photographer...

A crap photographer can take a great photo. Much of a photo is chance. The moment, the exposure, the light, can all possibly be fluked by chance.

[Greg B]

A couple of points from me.

I don't think that the "how" of a photograph has impact on greatness, although there would be some qualifications
to that, but the photograph (and its greatness) should be judged on its face rather than based on the circumstances
of the making of the photograph.

A great photograph can be fluked, but a great photographer will regularly produce quality output.

[gstark]

but a great photographer will regularly produce quality output.

As long as they have a great camera, right?

[Reschsmooth]

Okay, time to throw in MY personal opinion.

For photos that I consider to be *great*, I find that most of the following apply;

- the image tells *part* of a story, making me want to know more of the story.
- the image either tells me more of the story, or a different story when I look at again.
- the iconography or images used to tell the story are in a *language* I understand, or in other words the image can be (mis)understood by me without needing more information.
- I can see the image when I close my eyes.
- I have an emotional reaction to the image, it doesn't matter if the reaction is good, weak, strong, bad, amusement, confusion, anger or just a warm fuzy reaction.

And that's about it for me. Technical correctness means little to me per se, although well used technical skills or tools can help tell part of the *story*. Things like the use of colour, dof, sharpness, softness, lightness, darkness, compostion can all play a part in the telling of the story.

This, to me, provides part of the answer - and, as has been said, there is the element of how the image makes you feel. Nick Ut's photo is an example of being a very important and evocative image.

Looking at August Sander's today (well recommended exhibition), I saw some truly great photos which include those which were technically great and others which were less so. However, capturing portraits in particular contexts and environments told quite complicated and evocative stories.

Anyway, I still don't know how to explain, in my own mind, why a particularly photo may be great even if I don't like it.

This has been a great discussion so far. It's a shame EnergyPolice isn't here.

[phillipb]

This has been a great discussion so far. It's a shame EnergyPolice isn't here.

Actually Patrick, that is a very relevant observation. Amazing how a person with only 48 posts can have such a lasting effect on this forum, much in the same way a great photo can. So maybe controversy is an important ingredient of a great photo.

[wendellt]

i think a great photo is something captured or constrcted that communicates exactly what it is clearly without any external help to all levels from lowest common denominator to a Guggenheim art curator

something that stands the test of time

other things like depth, context and artistic flair are just aspects of a photo

i dont think people who take great photos know they take great photos
history, society the people who write about images and the media format plays a huge role in determining what a great photo is

[jamesw]

OT, but...

EnergyPolice

=

wanker

i read through the thread in question...

[gstark]

OT, but...

EnergyPolice

=

wanker

Now, now, James, personal attacks are not permitted here. Not ever. Accuracy is not an excuse. <smile>

Please consider that particular thread as nothing more than light entertainment. That's certainly how I took it.

[jamesw]

Morning Gary,

Accuracy is not an excuse. <smile>

I just wet myself.

[gstark]

Morning Gary,

Accuracy is not an excuse. <smile>

I just wet myself.

Please consider your knuckles suitably rapped!
And yes, good ...er, afternoon. Even where you are.

Now.

[Big V]

My humble opinion is that great photo is one that stands the test of time, it will still be great when viewed by others in a 100 years. Why is it so? It some how touches people for what ever reason and this is what makes it great, not the technical details, not the composition etc etc - there is just something intrinsic about it that makes you want to look at it again and again.

[Mark T]

Chapter 1 in every "Photography 101" book tells us that a photography is derived from photo (light) + graph (drawing), in other-words, drawing with light.

I believe, however, that when the light is captured in a particular way, whether it be by the keen use of light and shade or by the judicious rendition of colour, then the photograph becomes more than just a light drawing, but more of a light sculpture. Sometimes they even seem to acquire a 3D persona, with the viewer feeling as though they were inside, or part of, the photo. I also believe that when they become more like a 3D sculpture of light then they also become great photos.

To me, this explains why the two images mentioned in the original post seem to be so different. The photo by Young seems to display no appreciation for how the lighting creates the photo; there's almost no reliance on subtle shading. Look at the levels histogram - there's lots of bright highlights and lots of dark shadows, but hardly much in between. I look at this photo and what do I feel? I feel as though I am looking at someone's photo. Then look at the photo by Marlow and take a look at the levels for this photo too; although most of the photo is in the shadow end of the histogram, there's lots there, in the whole range from 0 - 50%. This photo uses subtle shading to create a 3D sculpture and I feel that I am actually there, possibly even taking the photo myself.

Of course, this could all be just the incoherent ramblings of a wanna-be photographer!

Mark