Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
It's a semi serious question actually.
I understand some of the basic technicalities of photography, ISO, DOF, shutter speed, lense choices etc but what makes a good photograph?
It bugs me that I can look at a good photo (and there are some stormers in the galleries) and know it's a great shot, but not know why it is so good.
In the case of some pictures, it's fairly obvious. For example, I don't know if many people have seen that simply breathtaking shot of an Osprey snatching a trout from the surface of a lough (sorry, I can't even remember who took it) as it's an amazing image, but the ones that confuse me most are those that are taken of what seems like a pretty mundane subject that makes an amazing picture.
A lot of them are scenes that I would stroll past, camera in hand, and wouldn't look twice at...
And some of the portraits are the same too. At the end of the day, it's just a face against a background, even I can do that, but why are some of them so incredibly enchanting and captivating whereas mine are simply images?
I read once what is supposed to be a major tip of looking "into" the viewfinder, rather than just through it, but it just doesn't gel for me.
Is it a skill that can be learned or is it an artistic streak that some are born with?
Sorry for the vagueness, and meaningless waffle, but I don't know how else to phrase it!
Cheers,
Chris
Your question can be answered in a single word - LIGHT
Yes the photographer has to make sure things are in focus and exposed correctly, plus work out a good composition, but all this is useless without the right light.
That doesn't have to be (and more often than not isn't) bright sunlight. Sometimes the best light can be found on a stormy day, but it has to light the subject in a way which lifts it from the mundane. That is why so many landscape photographers concentrate on dawn and dusk, or sunrise and sunset. Forgetting the colours, when the light is low there is much more texture created by the shadows.
The same principle applies to any type, macro, portraiture, etc. Shadows can make or break the photo.
There is a second word actually - ENJOYMENT. If you don't enjoy what you are doing you are not going to have the patience to experiment, learn from your mistakes, wait for the light (if you are taking landscapes) and achieve those results you admire.
Have fun
Ian
Much is to do with how you see the scene. In a landscape getting the right viewpoint and taking at the best time of day/lighting conditions. Timing can be essential. In the case of face shots, how your rapport is with the model which will show through in the expression. And the technicalities of the shot, such as critical focus point, amount of depth of field, balance, exposure accuracy all go to making a technically perfect shot. It's hard to be specific without seeing photos that you have taken and are disappointed with. I'd suggest you upload some to the gallery and tick the critique gallery option and ask this sort of question in the description box as you upload. You will get some good advice.
Morning Chris
You have to remember photography, like other forms of art, is very subjective. One image might appeal to one individual but not another. Saying that there are a number of rules to follow to gain credibility for an image. Portraits for instance benefit from the quality of light, ( also the quality of the subject but not always 
) light plays such an important part from making a dull portriat into a classic, if your portriats are " simply images " try studying the classic images to see what made them so good, light, sharpness, etc etc.
Kevin
Quote: .....but not know why it is so good
Now that to me is exactly why a great photograph is great.
Quote: Your question can be answered in a single word - LIGHT
Sorry Ian buty I respectfully disagree here. Of course light is an essential element and is what makes the difference between an OK shot and a great shot, to turn your argument around, the best light in the world isn't going to make a good photo unless the subject and composition are right. It's the ability to "see" things and find somewhere in all that's laid out in front of you a rectangle of subject which has an intrinsic balance and flow about it, leaving in only what should be there, leaving out what shouldn't. It could be a wide sweeping vista or a tiny section of that vista..
After that , (or maybe alongside it) there has to be good light
So, IMO, composition and good light,
and in answer to what I think BitBlury was getting at...
the ability to see and find the image from everything that's in front of you (or behind you )
Stephen
Quote: Sorry Ian buty I respectfully disagree here
How very dare you! 
I totally agree with you that light is only one element, but I was answering the point about the difference between an okay photo and an outstanding one. From a couple of phrases Chris used I understood him to be trying to work out why a shot which he felt technically capable of producing could be so much better than his efforts. He even uses the term 'mundane subject'. The answer in my view is light.
I am deliberately assuming that Chris is capable of getting the shot focussed and exposed. That leaves composition and light. Bad composition and good light still, in my opinion, gives more chance of an excellent shot than good composition and bad light.
Again, I agree that you need the ability to 'see' a shot, but again I refer you to Chris' reference to mundane subjects.
Light is (almost) everything.
“To take photographs means to recognize – simultaneously and within a fraction of a second – both the fact itself and the rigorous organization of visually perceived forms that give it meaning. It is putting one’s head, one’s eye and one’s heart on the same axis.”
Light is a frequent answer to this question. It can appear too simple and too obvious, but eventually I've come to the opinion that it is the right answer.
Whether its a lucky chance with natural light, or the result of planning and preparation with natural light, or whether its arranged studio lighting, it makes or breaks the image.
Composition is very important of course, without good composition there's not much chance of a really good picture, but I do think good light and poor composition will be better than poor light and good composition.
And thirdly, the subject. It is sometimes unfortunate, but for many viewers, the subject can outweigh other considerations.
A visually good photo of a subject that is morally offensive for example, or a poor photo of a subject which appeals to them.
The mind of the viewer is a fairly important part of photography.
On the other hand, although the question asked is "why it is so good", the thread header says "how do you do it ".
I think "how" is a harder question to answer, the one question is more about analysing a picture or a process to see what makes it good. The other is about how do you do that, and its often something built in through natural talent, or through long practice, or some combination. I thinks its much harder to nail down what and why you are doing something than it is to critique an image for example.
What makes you pause and look twice at something ? Why do you forget time and become absorbed in something visual ?
Is that how we all work ?
Connection with the subject probably is essential. I guess street photographers and sports PJs have to have a sense of connection with their milieu, as much as a portraitist with their subject. If you didn't feel in tune with it, if you didn't know it, how would you do it ?
Then there's the unconscious internal database of all the pictures you ever saw or took or printed, and especially the ones you studied. And familiarity with your equipment so it doesn't get in the way.
I sometimes think that photography is mostly luck, but then there is that saying, the harder you practice the more lucky shots you seem to get, and another one, fortune favours the prepared mind.
Quote: I am deliberately assuming that Chris is capable of getting the shot focussed and exposed. That leaves composition and light. Bad composition and good light still, in my opinion, gives more chance of an excellent shot than good composition and bad light.
I don't think you can have one without the other a poorly composed shot will still be a poor image no matter what the light. Both light and composition can be aided in photoshop, of course. A strong curve, use of blend modes can accentuate the light, - better still convert to mono. The crop tool can vastly improve composition - better to get it right in camera.
Quote: Again, I agree that you need the ability to 'see' a shot, but again I refer you to Chris' reference to mundane subjects.
Completely agree - but isn't that mainly down to composition?
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...Featured e2 Photo
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top